Speaker 1: Limerick Park in Los Angeles, California. I'm Tavis Smiley and
Speaker 1: I'm so glad to see you and me back in
Speaker 1: stride again. Before we get started with today's show, let
Speaker 1: me invite you to follow me on Facebook and Instagram
Speaker 1: at TheRealTavisSmiley and get updates on X, that's formally Twitter,
Speaker 1: at Tavis Smiley. By the way, Should you miss any
Speaker 1: part of today's program or want to catch up on
Speaker 1: previous shows, you can always visit TheTavisSmileyShow.com. That's TheTavisSmileyShow.com or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcast and listen to The Tavis
Speaker 1: Smiley Podcast version of this live program at your leisure.
Speaker 1: Another great show on tap for you today. In our
Speaker 1: second hour, two conversations. Up first, Skye Perryman, president and
Speaker 1: CEO of Democracy Forward and a Time 100 honoree, talks
Speaker 1: about her brand-new textbook. Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, How to
Speaker 1: Reclaim Your Power, Fight for Freedom, and Reimagine Democracy. On
Speaker 1: the B side of our two, America's Loneliness Trap, take
Speaker 1: a listen to this. One group of people in this
Speaker 1: country is more isolated than anyone else. No, it's not men.
Speaker 1: We'll talk to journalist and editor Nick Kepler about his
Speaker 1: latest provocative piece, interesting piece, for Slate Magazine. Who is
Speaker 1: the most lonely group of Americans? Stick around for the
Speaker 1: backside of our two. In our third hour, Wilbert Cooper,
Speaker 1: author of the New York Times and Time Magazine's most
Speaker 1: anticipated book of the summer. That's high cotton when the
Speaker 1: New York Times and Time Magazine both list your book
Speaker 1: as the most anticipated of the summer. It's called The
Speaker 1: Black Shield, An American Memoir of Family and Power. The
Speaker 1: book tells an astonishing story of family, race, and the
Speaker 1: complex duality of black cops in America. Fascinating text. I
Speaker 1: think you'll appreciate the conversation we're going to have in
Speaker 1: hour three about all that. But in this first hour today,
Speaker 1: let's talk politics and more with our regular contributor, philosopher, lawyer,
Speaker 1: and professor, Tim Golden. There is so much that we
Speaker 1: talked about yesterday that has had reverberation. since yesterday. I'm
Speaker 1: going to play a clip in just a moment here
Speaker 1: of Hakeem Jeffries feeling the need to defend that meeting
Speaker 1: with Jared Kushner that we talked about yesterday. So he's
Speaker 1: on the defensive now about that meeting. I said yesterday,
Speaker 1: you have these private meetings and somebody finds out about it.
Speaker 1: You can't keep nothing secret, especially in DC these days.
Speaker 1: So now he's having to speak publicly about what this
Speaker 1: meeting was really about. So we'll hear from Hakeem Jeffries
Speaker 1: here in just a second. Donald Trump, there's a new
Speaker 1: poll out. The question is, what does it really mean?
Speaker 1: I'll put that question to Tim Goldham.
Speaker 2: Here's the data.
Speaker 1: Trump, in this new poll, is underwater now in 47 states.
Speaker 1: I repeat that. He's underwater now in 47 states. I
Speaker 1: wasn't a math major, but I think since there are
Speaker 1: only 50 of them, that means he's underwater in a
Speaker 1: lot of red states. A lot of states have voted
Speaker 1: for him. He's now underwater now in this latest poll
Speaker 1: in 47 states. We'll talk about that with Tim Golden.
Speaker 1: We talked yesterday about impeachment, whether or not Democrats, Hakeem
Speaker 1: Jeffries and others, would have the temerity to impeach Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is sort of playing with him. He was
Speaker 1: in South Carolina over the weekend saying, they're going to
Speaker 1: impeach me. They're going to impeach me. He's kind of
Speaker 1: rubbing it in their face, I think, because he knows
Speaker 1: they ain't going to impeach him. But that didn't stop
Speaker 1: Al Green on his way out. He's leaving Congress after
Speaker 1: this term. But yesterday he introduced, he filed articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment against Donald Trump yet again. We'll talk about whether
Speaker 1: or not this impeachment thing is going to go anywhere.
Speaker 1: Al Green is going back to Texas. But will this
Speaker 1: impeachment argument with the file go anywhere in Congress once
Speaker 1: he leaves after he introduced it yesterday? And this backlash
Speaker 1: is growing, it seems, about Atlanta being snubbed as the
Speaker 1: host city for the Democratic Convention come 2028. I said
Speaker 1: yesterday on this program, I don't think it really matters
Speaker 1: what the convention is these days. It comes down to
Speaker 1: a few districts and a few swing states. Does it
Speaker 1: really matter where either convention is held? But Andy Beshear,
Speaker 1: the white male governor of Kentucky, has sided with the
Speaker 1: black mayor of Atlanta in saying that Democrats can't take
Speaker 1: black voters or the South for granted. OK, I expect
Speaker 1: that from a southern governor. But this this squabble up
Speaker 1: inside the DNC, another squabble up inside the DNC now
Speaker 1: about where they're going to have their convention. The finalist,
Speaker 1: the final three cities are what? Boston, Philadelphia and where
Speaker 1: am I missing? Denver, Boston, Philly and Denver, the final
Speaker 1: three cities. Atlanta gets snubbed, and the black folk there
Speaker 1: ain't happy about it. The black mayor ain't happy about it.
Speaker 1: But other Southerners are now saying you snubbed the South,
Speaker 1: and that's not a good thing. So the infighting inside
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party continues. What else is new? Another day,
Speaker 1: another fight. I'm going to unleash Tim Golden for the
Speaker 1: rest of the hour after I play you an Akeem
Speaker 1: Jeffries piece when we come forward. I'll start with the piece.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Miles, not to confuse you. We'll play the
Speaker 1: clip when we come forward and then go to Tim Golden.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Tavisman. You're on D with Tim Golden, philosopher, professor,
Speaker 1: and lawyer, legal analyst. Always good to have him on
Speaker 1: the program. Tim, how are you today, sir?
Speaker 2: I am doing fantastic, Tavis. Thank you so much for
Speaker 2: having me. As usual, it is great to be with you.
Speaker 1: As usual, good to have you on the program. Let
Speaker 1: me start with Akeem Jeffries. We talked again yesterday about
Speaker 1: a few things that have legs, as we say in
Speaker 1: this business. We'll come back to them and tell you
Speaker 1: how the story on these issues is advancing 24 hours later.
Speaker 1: We start with Hakeem Jeffries on that meeting with Jared Kushner.
Speaker 3: I want to give you a little real talk on
Speaker 3: this Jared Kushner situation. He asked for a meeting and
Speaker 3: I took it to discuss the affordability crisis that exists
Speaker 3: that is not a hoax. At the same period of time,
Speaker 3: I shouldn't have to say it.
Speaker 1: But I am.
Speaker 3: No one is going to get a pass We're going
Speaker 3: to hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable.
Speaker 3: Beginning on day one. If you're stealing from the American people,
Speaker 3: shortchanging the American people, or screwing over the American people,
Speaker 3: you're going to be held accountable. We're going to follow
Speaker 3: the facts, apply the law, and be guided by the Constitution.
Speaker 3: Beginning on day one. and hold the crooks accountable.
Speaker 1: There are a number of things about that clip, Tim Golden,
Speaker 1: that jump out at me. Let me just give you
Speaker 1: a few of them right quick, and I'll shut up
Speaker 1: and pass the mic to you. Number one, he says
Speaker 1: they're going to be held accountable. Every member of the cartel,
Speaker 1: the Trump cartel, is going to be held accountable on
Speaker 1: day one. Number one, he assumes that Democrats went back
Speaker 1: to the House and the Senate. That's the first thing.
Speaker 1: I've been saying for months now, warning this audience about
Speaker 1: what I call an irrational exuberance. We were looking for
Speaker 1: a big red wave. It did not happen in the
Speaker 1: Biden midterm. And now everybody's talking about this big blue
Speaker 1: wave that they expect to come in November. I pray
Speaker 1: that it does. But there's a lot of assumption in
Speaker 1: that comment from Hakeem Jeffries about what's going to happen
Speaker 1: on day one, assuming that he's the speaker on day one,
Speaker 1: number one. Number two, when he says we're going to
Speaker 1: hold every member of the Trump cartel accountable, I think
Speaker 1: that means everybody but Donald Trump. So I have not
Speaker 1: seen anything come out of Hakeem Jeffries' mouth that suggests
Speaker 1: to me that they really want to go after Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: We're going to connect this dot to the impeachment articles
Speaker 1: filed by Al Green yesterday. You and I both know
Speaker 1: Hakeem Jeffries don't want none of that. We talked about
Speaker 1: that on this show yesterday. So he says we're going
Speaker 1: to hold every member of the cartel accountable. Yeah, except
Speaker 1: for Jared Kushner's father-in-law, the one you had the meeting with.
Speaker 1: I could go on. Let me just stop for a second.
Speaker 1: But that clip, I like Hakeem, but that clip was
Speaker 1: funny to me for a lot of reasons. I don't
Speaker 1: want to take up all your time. Go, Tim Golden.
Speaker 2: So, Tavis, my initial reaction when I heard this was
Speaker 2: a reaction that we used to get out of the
Speaker 2: Reagan-Bush Republicans, who seem to be, as a practical matter,
Speaker 2: extinct in electoral politics nowadays. But I remember part of
Speaker 2: their rhetorical message was, that you don't negotiate with terrorists.
Speaker 2: I remember that would be said often in the context
Speaker 2: of foreign policy. And that's what was called to my
Speaker 2: mind when I heard about this meeting. I thought to myself,
Speaker 2: Leader Jeffries has created, whether he intended to or not,
Speaker 2: a real political mess for himself through taking this meeting,
Speaker 2: because people... don't understand nuance in the heat of an
Speaker 2: upcoming election. And whenever you have to explain yourself and
Speaker 2: justify yourself, you are really at a disadvantage. So my
Speaker 2: thinking is, on one hand, I can understand where Leader
Speaker 2: Jeffries is coming from, because let's be honest, Him and
Speaker 2: Jared Kushner do have a history of having worked together.
Speaker 2: They worked together on the First Step Act during Trump's
Speaker 2: first term. But what troubles me, Tavis, more than, you know,
Speaker 2: I understand they have a history and I understand he's
Speaker 2: trying to get things done. But I'm wondering to what
Speaker 2: extent this feeds into the notion of oligarchy. when an
Speaker 2: elected representative accountable to the people is meeting with someone
Speaker 2: who albeit has proximity to the president, but does not
Speaker 2: hold a position in government. That's what concerns me about
Speaker 2: the meeting most, more than all of the rhetorical things
Speaker 2: you could say about the meeting and not meeting with terrorists, etc.,
Speaker 2: and even more than their history of working together, I'm
Speaker 2: concerned now that taking this meeting signals a real influence,
Speaker 2: an influence that we know has existed for a long
Speaker 2: time from the Trump family. But it just became more
Speaker 2: real to me to look at this situation and see, wow,
Speaker 2: now you have elected leaders meeting with unelected influencers, and
Speaker 2: that to me smacks of oligarchy. And that concerns me
Speaker 2: more about that meeting than anything else.
Speaker 1: So I hear you. I've got a more grave concern
Speaker 1: than that. Let me just say, with all due respect,
Speaker 1: the only part of your argument that's missing for me
Speaker 1: is that if Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, were to
Speaker 1: meet with Donald Trump, the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: he'd be meeting with a terrorist. He'd be meeting with
Speaker 1: a war criminal. You and I both know that. So
Speaker 1: to suggest that that's the standard in this particular iteration
Speaker 1: of government, I'm not sure that holds respectfully. Because, again,
Speaker 1: if you call Jared Kushner that, then Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: that on steroids. So is Hakeem Jeffries, by your logic,
Speaker 1: not to meet with the president? I don't think that's
Speaker 1: what you're arguing. Because, again, I see Trump as a terrorist.
Speaker 1: I see Trump as a war criminal. So that can't
Speaker 1: be the box that you want to put Hakeem Jeffries in,
Speaker 1: is it, for starters?
Speaker 2: No, I don't want to put them in their box.
Speaker 2: And when I borrowed that rhetoric from Reagan-Bush Republicans, I
Speaker 2: wasn't making a hardcore one-to-one comparison and saying that Jared
Speaker 2: Kushner is a terrorist. I was using that term loosely
Speaker 2: to indicate the fact that these are two people on
Speaker 2: opposite sides of the aisle. So don't interpret my invocation
Speaker 2: of that statement as something where I was indicating that
Speaker 2: Jared Kushner is actually a terrorist, right? Donald Trump may
Speaker 2: be all of those things that you said, but at
Speaker 2: a minimum, Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Jared Kushner does not hold any elected office whatsoever. And
Speaker 2: so for me, the concerns about undue influence, of oligarchy
Speaker 2: in American politics took precedence over that. So that's why
Speaker 2: I took that position.
Speaker 1: I take your point. I ain't got an issue with
Speaker 1: the leader, Leader Jeffries, meeting with citizens of influence. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, that's his prerogative. What troubles me about this meeting,
Speaker 1: and I said so yesterday, and here's why Hakeem Jeffries
Speaker 1: had to respond to it today, because I was right yesterday,
Speaker 1: with all due humility. I said yesterday, the problem with
Speaker 1: this meeting is is that it was private. You cannot
Speaker 1: meet with Jared Kushner when your name is Hakeem Jeffries
Speaker 1: and think that ain't nobody going to find out about this.
Speaker 1: And this is the issue of decision-making about Hakeem Jeffries
Speaker 1: that bothers me. If Jared Kushner asked for a meeting
Speaker 1: and you decide to meet with Jared Kushner, put it
Speaker 1: on your public schedule. Say you're meeting with Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: and at least you avoid the issue of people thinking
Speaker 1: that you were meeting in secret to your point, with
Speaker 1: an oligarch. And I just don't understand the calculus on that.
Speaker 1: Why have a private meeting as if there was something
Speaker 1: to hide when now you've been forced to come out
Speaker 1: publicly and talk about it, and now you've got to
Speaker 1: spin it and say, yeah, I met with Jared privately.
Speaker 1: Y'all wasn't supposed to know about that. You found out
Speaker 1: about it, and since you did, let me tell you
Speaker 1: what we talked about, but we're going to hold every
Speaker 1: member of the Trump cartel accountable. That don't pass muster,
Speaker 1: Tim Golden. It don't pass the smell test.
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't. And part of it, I think you
Speaker 2: and I are in a way saying something very similar, Travis, right?
Speaker 2: Because when you meet with private citizens of influence, private
Speaker 2: citizens of influence want private meetings. They want things to
Speaker 2: be clandestine. They want to operate in the shadows. And
Speaker 2: if I could quote the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, who
Speaker 2: said democracy dies behind closed doors. Now, if you are
Speaker 2: meeting with a private citizen. to whom you're accountable, that's
Speaker 2: one of your constituents, that's one thing. But you're meeting
Speaker 2: with somebody who does not hold office, to whom you
Speaker 2: are not accountable as a representative, and you're taking a
Speaker 2: meeting with this person in private, and this person's only
Speaker 2: real credential is that they have a lot of money
Speaker 2: and they have a lot of influence and they have
Speaker 2: a direct access to to the president. And when you
Speaker 2: do that with a private citizen, any private, again, I
Speaker 2: agree with you, it absolutely sends the wrong message.
Speaker 1: Let me pivot then to this impeachment issue. I mentioned
Speaker 1: yesterday that Al Green, the congressman, let me do this first.
Speaker 1: Tim Golden had a slip of the tongue there. It
Speaker 1: happens to me all the time on this show, so
Speaker 1: we're all guilty of this every now and then. You
Speaker 1: can't do it, as I say to my friends, a
Speaker 1: live show for three hours every day and not slip up.
Speaker 1: But he just gave a great quote that he attributed
Speaker 1: to Thurgood Marshall, but it wasn't Thurgood Marshall. It was
Speaker 1: a justice, but it was not Thurgood Marshall. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you why I know this. I know this because I
Speaker 1: know the judge who said that. It was written in
Speaker 1: his decision about the Watergate hearing, and it was not
Speaker 1: Thurgood Marshall. It was Damon Keith, federal judge Damon Keith
Speaker 1: out of Detroit, who used that phrase. Thurgood Marshall may
Speaker 1: have borrowed it, but the phrase comes from Damon Keith,
Speaker 1: and I'm only saying that because I knew Judge Keith
Speaker 1: was a dear friend of mine. He wrote that line
Speaker 1: in his decision. The Watergate case was so hot in
Speaker 1: Washington that it went outside of Washington to the circuit
Speaker 1: in D.C., on which Judge Damon Keith sat. And he
Speaker 1: wrote that famous line, democracies die behind closed doors. It
Speaker 1: was coined by him in that 2002 landmark decision. I
Speaker 1: can almost guarantee you, Tevis, that one, you're correct.
Speaker 2: And two, Justice Marshall probably, my association of the quote
Speaker 2: with Justice Marshall is probably because Justice Marshall quoted Justice
Speaker 2: Keith in one of his opinions.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 2: Trust me.
Speaker 1: I just want to clarify that for two reasons. One,
Speaker 1: because I know the back story. It was Damon Keith,
Speaker 1: iconic black federal judge in Detroit. The second reason why
Speaker 1: I'm sharing is because this program right now is being
Speaker 1: heard in Detroit. And I'm going to get 25 phone
Speaker 1: calls from Detroit that we hate, that we hating on
Speaker 1: Detroit's own Judge Damon Keith, the late, great Damon Keith,
Speaker 1: by not giving him his respect. I don't want those
Speaker 1: phone calls coming from Detroit later today when they hear
Speaker 1: this program. I hear that comment. So anyway, it was
Speaker 1: Judge Damon Keith who originally said that Judge Thurgood Marshall
Speaker 1: may have quoted Keith in the decision. But it's a
Speaker 1: great quote. And I didn't say that to push back
Speaker 1: on Tim Golden. I just want to provide some light
Speaker 1: on that quote. It is a great quote. He said
Speaker 1: it then and he's right now. Democracies die. behind closed
Speaker 1: doors you see why tim golden used to quote uh
Speaker 1: it again underscores the view that so many of us
Speaker 1: have about what really happens in dc behind these closed
Speaker 1: doors washington is bought and bossed by big money and
Speaker 1: big business and it is these oligarchs and those with
Speaker 1: money and power uh to quote tim golden accurately that
Speaker 1: get the kind of access that most of us never
Speaker 1: would get do you think you could just ask uh
Speaker 1: hakeem jeffries for a private meeting and you'd get it
Speaker 1: The answer is no. You would not get a private
Speaker 1: meeting with Hakeem Jeffries. It doesn't work that way. But
Speaker 1: if you're Jared Kushner, to Tim's point, even if you
Speaker 1: don't hold any office, but you happen to have that
Speaker 1: level of stature, you can get a private meeting with
Speaker 1: Hakeem Jeffries. It sends the wrong signal. And that's why
Speaker 1: I said the meeting should not have been in private.
Speaker 1: Should have put it out there publicly to begin with. OK,
Speaker 1: enough of that. It's a great quote from Judge Keith.
Speaker 1: I love that guy. Democracies die behind. closed doors. All right,
Speaker 1: let me just play Al Green, Congressman Al Green, talking
Speaker 1: about his filing of these articles of impeachment against Trump
Speaker 1: again yesterday. When we come forward, I'll let Tim Golden
Speaker 1: go in on that. Here he is, Congressman Al Green. Hello, everyone.
Speaker 4: I'm your Congressman Al Green, and today I have just
Speaker 4: filed articles of impeachment. I have the articles in.
Speaker 2: My hand, H. Res.
Speaker 4: 1486, teaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States,
Speaker 4: for high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm not going to go
Speaker 4: into great detail right now about these articles, but I
Speaker 4: shall in the days to follow. But I will say this,
Speaker 4: these articles are not about Democrats. They're not about conservatives
Speaker 4: or liberals. They're not about left or right. They're about
Speaker 4: right and wrong. They're about life and death.
Speaker 1: I'm Travis Molley, I'm the brilliant philosopher, professor, legal analyst.
Speaker 1: all-around amazing public intellectual Tim Golden, who is our lead
Speaker 1: guest today. I can't call him a guest. He's a
Speaker 1: regular contributor, and I'm blessed to have him on this program.
Speaker 1: Let me play one more again in case you've just
Speaker 1: tuned in. The Al Green clip, we've been talking in
Speaker 1: the first half hour, in case you've just turned this on,
Speaker 1: about some stories that we raised yesterday that have grown
Speaker 1: over the last 24 hours. We started talking about this
Speaker 1: meeting between Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House,
Speaker 1: and Jared Kushner, a private meeting they had They broke
Speaker 1: all out into the public and people found out about
Speaker 1: the meeting. And so now Hakeem Jeffries on his heels
Speaker 1: trying to explain why he had this private meeting with
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner. I won't play that clip again, but he
Speaker 1: tries his best to explain it. But he said ultimately that, yeah,
Speaker 1: we met and we talked about affordability as if, again,
Speaker 1: another point, Tim, as if Jared Kushner knows anything about affordability.
Speaker 1: That's the funny part here. This guy... Jared Kushner can't
Speaker 1: spell affordability. He doesn't have any affordability issues in his
Speaker 1: own life, but that's what the meeting was about? Okay, Hakeem. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the oligarchs get access to the leaders. That's the way
Speaker 1: it works in D.C. But Hakeem Jeffries, that is, explaining,
Speaker 1: trying to explain why he met with Jared Kushner privately.
Speaker 1: It's now out in the public, and so we played
Speaker 1: that clip earlier. But I want to come back now
Speaker 1: to this Al Green clip. Congressman Al Green out of
Speaker 1: Houston has once again introduced impeachment articles against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You know Al Green. He's been kicked out of the Senate.
Speaker 1: out of the well of the House two or three
Speaker 1: times during Trump speeches for standing up and protesting the
Speaker 1: president to his face in real time. I love Al
Speaker 1: Green for that. He's finishing up his last term.
Speaker 2: He was beaten.
Speaker 1: They redrew the lines in Texas. He lost a race
Speaker 1: to a young brother named Christian Menifee, a sharp brother.
Speaker 1: But Christian is a new congressman in that area, so
Speaker 1: Al Green is now in his last term. But he
Speaker 1: ain't getting out of there without introducing these articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment at least one more again. Here is Al Green
Speaker 1: talking about it, and then we'll have Tim respond. Hello, everyone.
Speaker 4: I'm your Congressman Al Green, and today I have just
Speaker 4: filed articles of impeachment. I have the articles in my hand, H.
Speaker 2: Res.
Speaker 4: 1486, impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States,
Speaker 4: for high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm not going to go
Speaker 4: into great detail right now about these articles, but I
Speaker 4: shall in the days to follow. But I will say this.
Speaker 4: These articles are not about Democrats. They're not about conservatives
Speaker 4: or liberals. They're not about left or right. They're about
Speaker 4: right and wrong. They're about life and death.
Speaker 1: All right, Tim Golden, Al Green once again files articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment. Let me connect this dot, as I promised
Speaker 1: I would earlier, to Hakeem Jeffrey suggesting that he is
Speaker 1: going to hold every member of the Trump cartel accountable.
Speaker 1: I think he meant every member except Donald Trump. But
Speaker 1: how do you read these impeachment articles being introduced yesterday
Speaker 1: and whether or not there's any hope that Democrats would
Speaker 1: actually investigate Donald Trump if they get the gavel back,
Speaker 1: much less impeach Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: Representative Green has the right spirit, but regrettably he's in
Speaker 2: the wrong venue to expect results on these articles of impeachment.
Speaker 2: The framers of the Constitution... designed impeachment to be a
Speaker 2: political process. And what I mean by political is they
Speaker 2: designed it precisely to function with all of the things
Speaker 2: that Representative Green says these articles are not about. It
Speaker 2: was designed to be drawn along partisan lines, whether or
Speaker 2: not articles of impeachment actually go forward. And so The
Speaker 2: difference is that there's also a legal process, which is
Speaker 2: based more on the law, the evidence, etc. And for impeachment,
Speaker 2: it's a horse of a different color. So unfortunately, the
Speaker 2: impeachment process is all about partisanship. It's all about left
Speaker 2: and right. It's all about Democrat versus Republican. It's not
Speaker 2: really about right and wrong at all. If you remember,
Speaker 2: President Clinton was impeached for conduct that didn't arguably didn't
Speaker 2: really have anything to do with his abilities or his
Speaker 2: policies or any criminal behavior that he engaged in. So
Speaker 2: I think, again, Representative Green has the right spirit, but
Speaker 2: that's not the right venue to expect results, especially if
Speaker 2: it is about right and wrong. Now, Tavis, the broken
Speaker 2: clock is right twice a day, right? Every now and then,
Speaker 2: Congress might do something important morally that's also important from
Speaker 2: a policy standpoint, but that's not really the norm. in
Speaker 2: that institution of American public life. So, again, I think
Speaker 2: it's the right spirit, but I think he's in the
Speaker 2: wrong venue to expect those kind of results. And if
Speaker 2: Representative Jeffries is trying to go after the Trump administration
Speaker 2: or the people in what he calls the Trump cartel,
Speaker 2: I think what he has to understand is if Democrats
Speaker 2: do win the House, in November, then they better get
Speaker 2: down to the business of addressing all these issues of
Speaker 2: affordability that are so important to everyone. Because if they
Speaker 2: assume power and they spend their time trying to exact
Speaker 2: vengeance on the Trump administration through impeachment, that's going to
Speaker 2: be a huge distraction for to the affordability issues that
Speaker 2: are so important to average everyday Americans.
Speaker 1: Speaking of everyday Americans, if you are an everyday listener
Speaker 1: to this program, we're now 2-0 with lead guests two
Speaker 1: days in a row who argue that strategically it would
Speaker 1: be a mistake for Democrats to go down the impeachment
Speaker 1: path that Al Green has suggested, and Democrats ought to
Speaker 1: spend their time, if they get the gavel back, working
Speaker 1: on these affordability issues that everybody spends so much time
Speaker 1: talking about. Eli Addy, who was a former White House speechwriter,
Speaker 1: was our lead guest yesterday. That was his opinion yesterday.
Speaker 1: Here comes Tim Golden. I didn't see that coming. But
Speaker 1: here comes Tim Golden a day later agreeing with Eli
Speaker 1: Addy that Democrats would not be well served to spend
Speaker 1: time on impeachment proceedings. But here's the rub for me, Tim,
Speaker 1: as I said yesterday to Eli Addy. I hear the
Speaker 1: point you and Eli are making strategically. What that suggests
Speaker 1: to me then is that you and Eli are going
Speaker 1: to let Donald Trump, you're okay with Donald Trump getting
Speaker 1: away with his high crimes and misdemeanors. So when you
Speaker 1: talk about holding him accountable, when Hakeem Jeffrey says we're
Speaker 1: going to hold accountable every member of the Trump cartel,
Speaker 1: then it's a bunch of nonsense. You don't really mean it.
Speaker 1: Because if the decision is already made that it's bad
Speaker 1: strategically to spend time going after impeachment, we got to
Speaker 1: show the American people what we can do to make
Speaker 1: their lives better and working on these affordability issues, which
Speaker 1: I get, then how does Donald Trump ever get held accountable?
Speaker 1: You just said that impeachment is the wrong process. So
Speaker 1: what is the right process? What is the right path?
Speaker 1: What is the right venue? Or is Donald Trump just
Speaker 1: going to get away with all of this?
Speaker 2: Well, something interesting happened in the wake of January 6th
Speaker 2: and Trump's second impeachment. All of the Republicans were talking
Speaker 2: about look, this is a political process. Trump could be
Speaker 2: indicted when he leaves office and so forth and so on.
Speaker 2: So that's why I'm voting no to remove him from office.
Speaker 2: A number of Republican senators said that during the impeachment trial.
Speaker 2: The problem that we have now is theoretically you can't
Speaker 2: rely on the Justice Department the way you could because
Speaker 2: all of those institutional barriers have been broken down and
Speaker 2: at least I'm sure Trump is going to make certain
Speaker 2: the way he has with his illegal appointments to go
Speaker 2: after people like Letitia James and other of his foes,
Speaker 2: he is essentially protected by the Supreme Court of the
Speaker 2: United States in the Trump versus United States decision. So, Tavis,
Speaker 2: I don't know if the answer to your question is,
Speaker 2: could be that Trump would ever be held accountable for
Speaker 2: any of this. And perhaps that may lead to outrage,
Speaker 2: but I think a political calculation has to be made.
Speaker 2: Trump for two more years? Trump for two more years,
Speaker 2: there's another presidential election, or you expend your capital on
Speaker 2: an impeachment process in which you likely will not have
Speaker 2: the votes because the Senate has to vote to remove
Speaker 2: him if he is impeached. So you've got to take
Speaker 2: the House and the Senate, and you've got to hope
Speaker 2: that works. And if it doesn't, and the affordability issues
Speaker 2: are perceived as being ignored, then in 28, you have
Speaker 2: another problem because the Congress and Senate are, I mean,
Speaker 2: everybody in Congress is, well, not everybody, but everybody in
Speaker 2: the House is going to be up for re-election again,
Speaker 2: and they're going to be facing this difficulty. And so
Speaker 2: my question is, if this is the place where we
Speaker 2: found ourselves, Then the question for me is, how did
Speaker 2: we get here and what will it take to undo
Speaker 2: this situation where we're essentially stuck?
Speaker 1: Those are legitimate questions. I just don't think the answer
Speaker 1: is either or. I think the answer is both and.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, what Tim Golden just
Speaker 1: told you, the brilliant Tim Golden, and he's right about it.
Speaker 1: I hate to admit it, but he's right. What Tim
Speaker 1: Golden just told you, if I can just break it down,
Speaker 1: is that Donald Trump has not and will never be
Speaker 1: held accountable by the court system He has not and
Speaker 1: he will not be held to account by the United
Speaker 1: States Congress. He has not and will not ever be
Speaker 1: held to account by any international court. He has not
Speaker 1: and will not ever be held accountable by the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: the highest court in the land, given the immunity that
Speaker 1: they've already given him on pretty much everything. And I
Speaker 1: think you can deduce from that that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: going to get away with every single thing he has
Speaker 1: done and every single thing he will do between now
Speaker 1: and the time he leaves office, if, if he leaves office.
Speaker 1: But I digress for now. You're listening to Tavis. You
Speaker 1: are indeed inside the Tavis and Tim show, the Tim
Speaker 1: and Tavis show. This happens every so many weeks, and
Speaker 1: I'm always pleased to have Tim Golden on this program. Tim,
Speaker 1: no naivete here, as I often say, but I know
Speaker 1: the audience is processing the your commentary the same way
Speaker 1: I'm processing it, which is essentially that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: going to get away literally with murder. He's getting away
Speaker 1: with everything. And every time I process this in my
Speaker 1: own head, I think about Letitia and Jamal. I think
Speaker 1: about Jose and Maria, all these black and brown people
Speaker 1: in the country who could never imagine just getting away
Speaker 1: with this. And here's the insult. What's that old adage?
Speaker 1: Here's the pouring of salt into the wound. It's not
Speaker 1: just that Donald Trump gets away with it is that
Speaker 1: he's getting all of his friends off. I mean, he
Speaker 1: pardoned all those insurrectionists. So it's not just him getting
Speaker 1: away with it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Leader Jeffries, you're wrong.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are not going to hold every member of
Speaker 1: the Trump cartel accountable because if they tried to do that,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump still has the power to pardon every member
Speaker 1: of his cartel. So it's not just Donald Trump. It's
Speaker 1: everybody in the cartel is going to get away with
Speaker 1: it to him.
Speaker 2: It's everybody. It's everybody, Tavis. Everybody is going to get
Speaker 2: away with it. We're talking about somebody. In fact, in fact,
Speaker 2: I don't think this is a controversial claim to make.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump ran for president to keep himself out of prison.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: He ran for president two years ago with the hope
Speaker 2: that if he won, all of his legal troubles would
Speaker 2: go away. And that's exactly what happened. And so he
Speaker 2: ran for president to stay out of jail. And now
Speaker 2: that he knows, because here's the thing, those prosecutions are gone.
Speaker 2: They're not coming back. They're gone forever. And there were
Speaker 2: four of them. And they're all gone. So he ran
Speaker 2: for president to stay out of prison. And now that
Speaker 2: he won the election, he can ensure that he will
Speaker 2: not be held accountable to anybody except E. Gene Carroll
Speaker 2: for $ 5. 8 million.
Speaker 1: And except E. Gene Carroll and one other person who
Speaker 1: sits high and looks low. He's still going to be
Speaker 1: held accountable to that person that sits high and looks low.
Speaker 1: None of us. gets away with everything, even when we
Speaker 1: think we do. There is a God that we all
Speaker 1: have to answer to at some point. I don't mean
Speaker 1: to be sacrilegious or proselytize here, but he's going to
Speaker 1: be held to account one day for all the damage
Speaker 1: he's done to so many other people. It might not
Speaker 1: be by the Congress, by the Supreme Court, or any
Speaker 1: national court, or even by the American people, but at
Speaker 1: some point he's going to have to give an answer
Speaker 1: for all his dastardly deeds. I digress on that for now.
Speaker 1: When we come forward, not that Donald Trump cares about this,
Speaker 1: Because as we've just discussed, he's getting away with everything anyway.
Speaker 1: So does it really matter to him that he's underwater
Speaker 1: in 47 states? Likely not. We'll talk about it anyway
Speaker 1: with Tim Golden on Tavis Smart. Donald Trump's approval rating
Speaker 1: is a negative 26. Negative 26. He's down even more
Speaker 1: so from last week. He is now underwater in 47 states.
Speaker 1: I asked Tim Golden, does it really matter? Does he care? No.
Speaker 2: Yes, Tevis. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: No, that wasn't rhetorical. That was not rhetorical. Does it
Speaker 1: really matter? Does he care?
Speaker 2: I don't think... I think he cares at this point.
Speaker 2: For him, it's about his legacy. Assuming he doesn't try
Speaker 2: to upend the Constitution and run for a third term.
Speaker 2: Or somehow try to finagle his way into a third term.
Speaker 2: So I think it It matters for him in terms
Speaker 2: of legacy. As a practical matter, because the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: has been so friendly to him, I think he is
Speaker 2: pretty safe from criminal prosecution once he leaves office. And
Speaker 2: I think he will ride that off into the sunset.
Speaker 2: What has really... perhaps deluded him to this point, and
Speaker 2: you and I have talked about this before, Tavis, is
Speaker 2: that despite him being underwater in so many of these
Speaker 2: states in the primary seasons that we've been experiencing this year,
Speaker 2: his candidates who he has endorsed have come out smelling
Speaker 2: like roses. And that's a good thing, but the problem
Speaker 2: is that those are not national elections, right? We're typically
Speaker 2: talking about congressional elections, House elections, where people are voting
Speaker 2: only in one district. And so we'll see what comes
Speaker 2: of that. But in the end, it may not matter.
Speaker 2: It may not matter at all. But again, he's not
Speaker 2: going to... Theoretically, he can't run again. But theoretically, it
Speaker 2: has to be underscored big time because... And upending the
Speaker 2: Constitution has never stopped him before.
Speaker 1: Mayor Andre Dickens finally here. Got 60 seconds to go.
Speaker 1: Andre Dickens, mayor of Atlanta, has sent a letter out
Speaker 1: addressed to Atlanta, the South, and all Democrats. The DNC
Speaker 1: continues to make the wrong choices. He goes on to
Speaker 1: go in on this in this letter on the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Ken Martin, the Democratic chairperson, they made a huge mistake
Speaker 1: not choosing Atlanta. The final three cities for the convention
Speaker 1: in 2038 are Boston, Philly, and Denver. We'll see which
Speaker 1: of those three wins. Andy Beshear, governor of Kentucky, has
Speaker 1: sided with Andre Dickens, mayor of Atlanta, saying this is
Speaker 1: not a good decision. In a quick 30 seconds, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure it matters where the convention is, but it
Speaker 1: does make a statement. This is a controversy now about
Speaker 1: whether or not the DNC is ignoring black voters.
Speaker 2: I think the Atlanta mayor and the Kentucky governor are correct.
Speaker 2: This would have been the perfect time to host the
Speaker 2: convention in Atlanta, especially given Given the importance of black
Speaker 2: voting rights and black political power, the recent Calais decision
Speaker 2: of the Supreme Court, I think Atlanta was a prime
Speaker 2: opportunity for the Democratic Party to saturate itself in the
Speaker 2: richness of black history. at a time when black history
Speaker 2: is so profoundly under attack by an administration that's fundamentally,
Speaker 2: at its core, white supremacist.
Speaker 1: Nope. It's a strong letter. You should just Google it.
Speaker 1: Google the letter written by Mayor Andre Dickens to Atlanta,
Speaker 1: the South, and all Democrats. I ain't got time to
Speaker 1: go through it. It's a strong letter. He wasn't feeling
Speaker 1: this decision. I digress for now. Tim Gordon, we'll talk
Speaker 1: again soon. Take care of yourself.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Thank you, Tavis. Take care.
Speaker 1: One hour down, two to go. You're listening, and I'm
Speaker 1: glad about it to Tavis Smart.