Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 8/19/25: Jeffrey Sachs Breaks Down Trump Ukraine Summit, Trump Pushes Mail In Ballot Ban

Episode Date: August 19, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Jeff Sachs breaks down Trump Ukraine summit, Trump pushes ban on mail in ballots.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an IHeart podcast. Hey guys, it's AZ Fud. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion. You may even know me as the People's Princess. Every week on my new podcast, Fud Around and Find Out, I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court.

Listen to Fud Around and Find Out, a production of IHart Women's Sports in partnership with unanimous media. on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. It's Black Business Month, and Money and Wealth Podcast with John Hope Bryant is tapping in. I'm breaking down how to build wealth, create opportunities, and move from surviving to thriving. It's time to talk about ownership, equity, and everything in between. Black and brown communities have historically been last in life. Let me just say this.

AI is moving faster than civil rights legislation ever did. Listen to Money and Wealth from the Black Effect Podcast Network on IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. What would you do if one bad decision forced you to choose between a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth? Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York state number, and we own you. Listen to shock incarceration on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breaking Points. Become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breaking points.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. We have Crystal. Indeed, we do. We got a big show today. The one and only Professor Jeffrey Sachs is going to join us to be able to break down that big Ukraine summit from yesterday. So really looking forward to hearing what he thought of everything that has transpired to the state. We also had some other interesting sound come from Trump as a part of that summit talking about how he's getting rid of mail-in ballots.

He also posted true social to the same effect. Also sort of floating the idea of, hey, maybe for a war we just don't have an election. He wants to copy Ukraine. Got the idea. A lot to take note of there and breakdown. Also, we're asking the question whether Gavin Newsom is going to meme his way to the presidency. He seems to be making some progress in half regard. Very interesting dynamics unfolding there.

A little bit of weird horseshoe going on as well, so I'll break that down for you. The ADL chief is just outright lying about Zoran Mondani, so we've got the receipts on that. And some quite noteworthy developments vis-a-vis Israel. Hamas has accepted a ceasefire deal. I wouldn't get too excited yet because, you know, the Israelis will probably decide they just want to continue the war. But we did want to give you those details as well as some other updates. Before we jump into the show in this interview with Professor Sacks, Saga had some some great breaking news yesterday, very significant.

Why don't you break down for folks what you found and were able to get your hands on? For our premium members, I dropped it last night just to get ahead of the news. But basically, you'll remember the story about Tom Alexandrovich, the Israeli government official who was caught up in an FBI child sexting. I actually got my hands on some of the arrest documents, and specifically the interview notes. And what we found inside of the documents is that Alexandrovich immediately identified himself as an Israeli government official, the FBI. HSI agents who interviewed him basically said, we're going to contact the embassy on your behalf.

This directly contradicts the prime minister's office who said that they didn't know that he had been arrested. He said, he said, I need to get on a flight to Israel immediately. He was making it clear, I need to arrange for my international travel back to Israel after being caught up in the sting. And more, most importantly, he was here basically on government business to attend a, quote, black hack conference for cybersecurity professionals. He had met with FBI agents and an upcoming meeting with the NSA. So with our own security establishment. This is all on the record here from the documents that we were able to review. So we did drop that early for our premiums. And, you know, if you can help support journalism like that, breakingpoints.com,

if you're able. We're not keeping it behind the paywall or anything. I'm going to release it all publicly today. But it was important to give it to our premium subscribers first. The other detail there is the undercover agent who was posing as a 15-year-old girl. Oh, I didn't, yeah. I didn't even talk about the actual crime. It's disgusting. That's what, you know, is alleged to have occurred here is he was arranging to meet up with this 15-year-old girl for the explicit purposes of sexual contact, unbeknownst to him. This was, you know, an undercover agent. He was going to take her to Cirque to Solay. Yeah, classy.

Very disgusting. Utterly disgusting. This is the guy that the government was like, oh, let's just make sure you get on a flight to Israel and escape scot-free. Meanwhile, the other people who were caught up on this day, you know, were under arrest, have court days, et cetera. So, very interesting. Interesting. Interesting indeed. We will continue to follow the case. I'm hoping to get some more. And by the way, if you are in the Henderson Police Department, the FBI, the HSI, if you were involved in this investigation in any way and you want to talk, hit me up. Let's talk.

All right? Because, you know, I will be knocking on your door and I will be beating down your door, or I guess virtually to try and get on the phone. There's still several leads that I would like to follow up on. There's some very interesting stuff potentially behind the scenes. But anyway, with that, we've got Professor Jeffrey Sachs standing by. Let's get to it. We are very excited now to be joined by our friend, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who is obviously a major geopolitical expert, and he's going to help us break down the Trump, Ukraine and European Summit that happened yesterday. Professor, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Great to be with you. So, Professor, we're going to go through this so that you can help break this down through the

audience, kind of clip by clip, and each one of those things that it represents. To us, the major headline that came out of the summit was Trump not ruling out. United States troops on the ground in Ukraine to provide some sort of Article 5-style security guarantee inside of Ukraine as some sort of grand peace deal with Russia. Here's Trump refusing to rule it out. Your team has talked about security guarantees. Could that involve U.S. troops? Would you rule that on the future? We'll let you know that maybe later today. We're meeting with seven great leaders of great countries also. And we'll be talking about that. They'll all be involved, but there'll be a lot of, there'll be a lot of help. When it comes to security,

there's going to be a lot of help. It's going to be good. They are first line of defense because they're there. They're Europe, but we're going to help them out also. We'll be involved. We'll be involved, professor, so not refusing to, or basically refusing to rule out, not putting U.S. troops on the ground. There were several other instances during the meeting where this, quote, Article 5 style guarantee was brought up by many of the European leaders. of course, we're hearing from the Kremlin, but first we want your reaction to what that would mean to the overall situation and Trump's rhetoric here and what it could potentially mean for any sort of peace deal. Well, I don't believe we've just had 11 years of war and that the war

is about to stop because the United States or Europe says they're going to have troops on the ground or Article 5-like agreements. This whole war started because the United States was pushing NATO to surround Russia and as far eastward as they could get. So I don't think that the Russian side is going to say, sure, whatever you like. What we saw yesterday was a, I wouldn't say a master class, but it was a class in ambiguity on everything. Nothing was clear. Nothing was truthful, nothing was settled. But there is a general recognition that Ukraine is losing on the battlefield, a general fact that the United States political scene is not going to continue any large-scale war proxy or otherwise with Russia, and so that something should be done to end this.

But the specifics are as vague as can be, and deliberately so. And Trump thinks that the way to make deals is to prevaricate, to make things vague, to keep things behind the scenes, to pull each person in as his buddy to say yes to everything in an oblique way. But it's not going to end with the Article 5. like guarantees. In my view, the Russians have been fighting against that basically for more than 30 years. They've been in a hot war over it for 11 years because this war started in February 2014 when the United States conspired in a coup to overthrow a neutralist government. And the Russians aren't going to just say, yeah, Trump, you're our buddy. You put troops if you want.

I don't believe it. I think it would also be a terrible idea if the United States had troops in Ukraine. Yeah. Well, and to your point, I could put A4 up on the screen, guys, Kremlin negatively reacting to that proposal of Article 5, like security guarantees, certainly no surprise there. You know, just zooming on a bit, Professor, I just love to get your thoughts on what are the core sticking points for the Russians. what would be a deal that they would be interested in? What sort of conditions would the U.S., the Ukrainians, the Europeans, the West broadly have to meet in order to conclude some sort of a grand peace deal and bring this war to a close? We have to understand where the war came from and therefore how it can end. The war started with the continuation of the Cold War after 1991.

People thought there was peace, but the CIA, the military industrial complex, continued the effort to weaken Russia. Brzynski talked about Russia falling into three pieces in a 1997 article saying that maybe there'll be a loose confederation of a European Russia, a Siberian Russia, Far East Russia. but the U.S. design was that Russia should finally basically be crushed, that the Cold War was with the Soviet Union, but we're not over yet. We're dominant. We won. And on that basis, Clinton began NATO enlargement. I say Clinton because basically every president then did the bidding of the military industrial complex, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump won, Biden. And maybe this is going to end this. crazy misadventure, but this has been 30 years of trying to push NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia, by the way, in the South Caucasus, where the U.S. meddling continues to this day. The idea is Russia is a big country, and therefore it should be a weak country, according to the U.S. Strategic Doctrine. Okay, we overthrew a government in February 2014, installed a pro-Nate.

regime. Russia immediately took back Crimea at that moment because the post-coup government in Ukraine said, okay, we want Russia out of its black fleet naval base in Crimea. That's a naval base that Catherine the Great established in 1783 and that has been core to Russia's national security and power since 1783, the United States and, let's say, the deep state said, we want Russia out of there. That was the same idea of the British and the French in 1853 have tried to get Russia out of Crimea in the Crimean War. Okay, enough history. The basic point is Russia does not want to be surrounded. It does not want NATO present. It does not want security guarantees like Article 5, it does not want Western troops on the ground. It wants Ukraine

at a minimum to be a neutral buffer zone between the United States and its proxies and allies and Russia. That's the bottom line. So starting point, no NATO. Similarly, nothing that's NATO-like or NATO light of, you know, French and British troops and German troops. And that's what the whole war has been about. Second, Crimea's never going back. This is absolutely clear. This was a gambit. It was a, this was a ploy of NATO to grab Crimea.

And the whole idea, which Brzynski spelled out in 1997, was if we can basically get Ukraine, and push Russia out of the Black Sea, then Russia has no power in the Middle East. It has no power in the eastern Mediterranean. And that was part of the strategy. So Crimea staying. Then come the territories that Russia has annexed as of November 22. This is two in the east and two in the south. The idea of this goes back to two points. One is that, as a at least in the east, these are overwhelmingly ethnically Russian regions, the Donbass. And Russia said in 2015, make them autonomous. We don't want them as territory, but make them autonomous under a treaty called the Minsk II agreement. The United States, typically, because it was still in its expansionist mode, said, no, told Ukraine, you don't have to honor that agreement. Russia did not claim those territories. It just said, leave them alone to have the Russian language, Russian ethnicity, and so forth. And Ukraine in the post-coup environment said, no, we will take them

in a unitary state. So Russia grabbed those back now. It's claimed those back because the Mids 2 agreement failed. The reason why I think the map is quite important, sir, is if you look at the red areas. This is, I guess, this is, I mean, probably as accurate as it gets. This is the United States, you know, it's an intelligence community creating this map for the president in the Oval Office, which he used. And as you were talking, you can actually see the percentage numbers that have been listed here by the U.S. intelligence community. If we zoom in, we can see some 70 to 80 to 90 percent of many of these provinces like you were talking, or sorry, these areas like you were talking about, and they're controlled by Russia. So you can just, as you can see from

that map, it backs up much of what you're saying. So the basic idea is that, ironically, before the United States made the coup in February 2014, Russia was not claiming these territories at all. Not at all. We blew it for Ukraine, because this is so typical of the CIA, by the way, we lose for our supposed friends. So when the coup came, And Kiev, that is the new central government in the post-coup Ukraine, said, we'll crack down on the ethnic Russian regions in the east and the south. A treaty was brokered by Russia to stop what was then a beginning war, called the Minsk 1 and then the Minsk 2 agreements. And the idea was that those regions, especially the two in the east, Lugansk and Donetsk, would be autonomous. Interestingly, by the way, just a little footnote.

The model of that was a European model. In Italy, there is a German-speaking region called South Tyrol, which has autonomy within Italy. Actually, Chancellor Merkel, who was then the German chancellor, knew about that and said that the Minsk Two agreement can be modeled like South Tyrol. In other words, an autonomous region in Italy, but of German speakers, but very peaceful, very successful, very beautiful, wonderful skiing and tourism, by the way. And they said that could be the solution. The United States wasn't having it. And the extremist nationalists in Ukraine were not having it. They said, no, no autonomy, unitary state.

And they blew the chance to keep those provinces because after Russia's invasion, they control almost all of it now. That's what the shaded areas of the map are, the battle line control, the battlefield control that Russia has over these areas. Now, where does that bring us till today? Ukraine cannot win back those territories other than through a massive war, which could, again, be a massive failure, massive deaths, a massive escalation to nuclear war. So it can't really win those back. Ukraine has said every day, we'll never give up a square meter of our territory.

impossible. This is all ours. The European leaders who were there yesterday have parroted that line. Well, what's the alternative? The alternative then is the fighting continues. If the fighting continues as it's continuing now, Russia will simply take those regions physically. It will proceed to take more territory, by the way, of Ukraine. And eventually, I think on the current scenario, would simply be conquered. The hardline warmongers, and Mertz is a true warmonger. He is really disgusting, in my view, by the way, awful, Chancellor. It's unbelievable. Every word he says is more war. Basically, they say, sure, let's escalate. We won't give up an inch. Well, this already has been the last 11 years. I don't think Trump wants that.

I don't think his Maga base wants that. I don't think the American people want that. The Ukrainian people don't want that. The most recent Gallup survey in Ukraine said, stop, this war, we're exhausted. More than a million Ukrainians have died. So all of this is to say that no NATO, a neutral Ukraine, Crimea is ours, and these four territories are contested, What is likely to happen is some de facto recognition that Russia controls these, that there will be a permanent peace.

Maybe Ukraine in the end will not recognize them de jure. But if the war ends, it will end with these areas being under, let's say, permanent Russian control. Hey, guys, it's AZ Fudd. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a People's Princess, but now you're also going to know me as your favorite host. Every week on my new podcast, fud around and find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy light as I try to balance it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time.

You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the fud family. So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV, you may think you know me. But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out. Listen to Fud Around and Find Out,

a production of IHart Women's Sports and Partnership with Unanimous Media on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. When I became a journalist, I was the first Latina in the newsrooms where I worked. I'm Maria Inojosa. I dreamt of having a place where voices that have been historically sidelined would instead be centered. For over 30 years now, Latino USA has been that place. This is Latino USA, the Radio Journal of News and Culture. As the longest running Latino news and culture show in the United States,

Latino USA delivers the stories that truly matter to all of us. from sharp and deep analysis of the most pressing news. They're creating these narrative that immigrants or criminals. This is about everyone's freedom of speech. Nobody expected two popes from the American continent to stories about our cultures and our identities. When you do get a trans character like Imidavetes, the trans community is going to push back on that.

Colorism, all of these things that exist in Mexican culture and Latino culture. You'll hear from people like Congresswoman, AOC. I don't want to give them my fear. I'm not going to give them my fear. Listen to Latino USA as part of the My Cultura Podcast Network, available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi everyone. It's Jeney, aka Cheekies from Cheekies and Chill Podcasts. And I'm launching an all-new mini podcast series called Sincerely Jeanne. Sure, I'm a singer, author, businesswoman, and podcaster. But at the end of the day, I am human. And that's why I'm sharing my ups and doubts with you guys. Hi, guys.

I was sitting here recording episodes of Dear Cheekies and Cheekies and Chill. And I just had to take a time out and purge my thoughts and feelings here on Sincerely Jeannay. Because I've been so emotional lately, you guys. Whether I'm in my feels, I've just had a breakthrough with my therapist, or I've just had a really deep conversation with my siblings. Or I'm in glam getting ready for an award show. I'm sharing my most intimate thoughts with you on the podcast. You guys know, I always keep it real with you guys, but this time I'm taking it to the next level. Listen to Cheekies and Chill on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Just to back you up on the Mertz point, the German chancellor set a condition, which seems very important, because one of the goals of this meeting was to eventually lead to a meeting between Donald Trump, Vladimir Zelensky, and Vladimir Putin. now come out is that there is a disagreement within the European Union and by these major NATO powers as to the preconditions for that meeting. Chancellor Merse was probably the most pessimistic in his language demanding an immediate ceasefire as a precondition. Guys, let's go ahead and take a listen, please, A3. We all would like to see a ceasefire, the latest from the next meeting on. I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire. So let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia because the credibility of these efforts we are undertaking today

are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations from next step on. So I would like to emphasize this aspect and would like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting. which should be a trilateral meeting wherever it takes place. So you could see he says an immediate ceasefire. He was the most pessimistic in his language, but he was backed up by Emmanuel Macron. One of the things I also took note of is that even though Donald Trump, in his truth,

social posts after the meeting said there will be a meeting between Zelensky and Putin and then eventually a trilateral, there was no such mention of any future meeting with Putin by Zelensky in his path comments afterwards. It seems to be one that Trump wants to happen. So this precondition of a ceasefire seems to be the way that both the European Union, the major NATO powers in Zelensky, can get out of any future diplomacy. Or am I seeing it wrong? You know, nobody speaks in a straightforward way.

Maybe that's to be expected, but it also is why we're at war endlessly, because there's dishonesty everywhere. there was no straightforward discussion. What are the alternatives? Mertz, he hasn't said one thing that I've agreed with since he became chancellor. And I would say that that's basically true of the German people also because Mertz's popularity is in a free fall, or his approval rating, let's say, is in a free fall. It's down to around 30 percent. He came in with the majority support as you do when you've won an election and it's in free fall because he doesn't make any sense. Russia will not agree to a ceasefire without a solution to the issues that we've been

discussing. That's been Russia's position, understandably, by the way, in my opinion, from the start, well, we are at war for reasons. Von Klauswitz, the German war theorist of the 19th century, famously said that war is a continuation of politics with other means. And so this is a very important observation. This is a war about politics. It's a war about NATO. It's a war about U.S. Russia relations. It's a war about the U.S. overthrowing governments with impunity. By the way, it seems to be a rule that once you've overthrown a few governments, you've retired a Columbia University as my colleague, because we have Victoria Newland, we have Hillary Clinton, we have Mike Pompeo, I don't know, and they teach diplomacy. This is unbelievable to me, but this

is part of what this war is about, which is that the U.S. acted with impunity after 1991 and told us that they would. The project for a new American century said, hey, we're not only the big kid on the block, we're the only kid on the block. We're the sole. superpower. We are the world's policemen. We are the world's hegemon. We do what we want. That's what this war was about originally. Now, Trump, I think, probably understands that the American people are just sick of this, by the way. It's endless wars. It's not only this war. It's the wars throughout the Middle East that Israel wangles us into. absolutely destructive and vile wars.

And the American people are sick of it. Nobody speaks straightforwardly. Trump doesn't explain after Alaska or after yesterday anything. There's no speech from the Oval Office. There's no explanation. We're in a different time from the time that I used to remember, not that things were perfect, but if President Kennedy wanted to achieve a treaty with the Soviet Union,

he'd give a speech and then people would analyze. the speech and understand it and so forth. Now we have true social posts that are completely ambiguous mean nothing and we're trying to parse what the words mean. And can be reversed the next day, by the way. Exactly. And our reverse. The exact opposite thing the next day when he's with someone else. I wanted to ask you about how Zelensky figures into all of this. Let's say the vibes between him and Trump were very different this time than the last time Zelensky was in the Oval Office. Let's go ahead, guys, and play A2. We had a very good conversation with President Trump. Very good.

And it really was the best one, or sorry, maybe the best one will be in the future. But it was really good. And we spoke about very sensitive points. The first one is security guarantees, and we are very happy, with President, that all the leaders are here, and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us. And Professor Zaggart, I both noted he seems to have really good working on his English Clearly, he realizes that it's very important he's able to have an effective relationship with President Trump here.

But, you know, you said earlier, it seems like the Ukrainian people are exhausted, want to bring this war to a close. It's not clear that their president is on board with that. You know, what do you make of his role in his positioning and what he wants to see going forward? First, it's important to understand that there is martial law in Ukraine. We watched the videos also of people being forcibly knocked off their bicycles or dragged off the street to the front line to their death. And Soensky is ruling over a military regime, not democracy. His democratic term of office expired years ago, and he continues to rule by martial law, basically, by decree. So I don't give any legitimacy to his statements as reflecting the will of the Ukrainian people.

This is a starting point. I've never really admired what he's done because rather than signing a peace agreement that he had in front of him in April 2022 that would have ended this war on far better terms than anything that's going to happen now, he let the United States, talk him out of that. Maybe he's a mere puppet anyway. But instead of signing an agreement that was on the table on April 15th, 2022 in the so-called Istanbul process, he walked away from a peace agreement since then has lost massive territory and probably a million Ukrainian dead. So I'm no fan, I have to say, no admirer, I'm no believer that this is defending Ukrainian democracy. There is no democracy. And so one of the things that makes the idea that if Zelensky meets with Putin, he's shown to be on the big stage globally, and then he can maintain his power, either through winning a re-election, perhaps, or just expanding and extending his military rule. But this seems to be the carrot that Trump is dangling to Zelensky.

I'll put you on the big stage. We won't overthrow you. We won't let Putin diss you. You'll have respect, but you have to give in on this, this and this. So frankly, you know, Zelensky is, look, he's losing a war on the battlefield. He doesn't have the public support. He rules by martial law by all accounts, which I can't personally verify, but by all accounts, the regime is incredibly corrupt.

And so not only am I no fan, I think probably what Trump is trying to do is to appeal to the most narrow and basest survival instincts of Zelensky himself and dangling this meeting with Putin, the big stage summit as the prize, and then getting Zelensky in one way or another to basically end the rhetoric of fighting on to restore the 1991 borders. I think that's what's happening. Last thing we wanted your take on, sir, is some of the continuation, because, you know, the threat from the United States is, well, if this doesn't work, we'll just go to more sanctions, as if Russia is not the most sanctioned country in the world. Already, we've actually seen, we can put A7 please, here on the screen.

Both Lindsey Graham and the White House advisor to Peter Navarro say that India's, quote, Russian crude oil buying must stop. Of course, even the imposition of 50% tariffs on India has not changed their behavior a single iota. In fact, Narendra Modi is posting about phone calls with President Putin just yesterday. I believe I was reading this morning that the Chinese foreign minister is actually in New Delhi as of this morning, meeting with the Indian foreign minister. So they're basically holding up a middle finger to the U.S. in response to these tariffs. So it does appear that many of the cards that are supposedly left to play, both by the Europeans and the U.S. don't really exist if they want to put any more, quote, pressure on Russia. Lindsay Graham is the worst senator in the U.S. Senate.

I just want to be on the record stating that. I will state that every show you have me on. He's a fool. Just a fool. Okay, let me put that aside to get onto the substance. The imposition of the 25% penalty tariff on India was the stupidest tactical move of U.S. foreign policy for a long time. And that's saying a lot, by the way. I could make a list of the top 10.

the top 20. I'd like to see that list, Professor. Yes. If you make it out. Why don't we talk about that sometime? Yeah. But what it did overnight was unify the BRICS countries as never before. That is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

I watched it, by the way, pretty close up, actually, because I know the leaders in all of these countries. Within 24, 48 hours, there was a flurry of calls. Brazil with India, Brazil with Russia, Brazil with China, China with India, China with Russia. Donald Trump was the great unifier of the bricks. And wonderful. Okay, I like the bricks, by the way. So I have no problem with that.

But the opposite of what Lindsay Graham conceivably could have been thinking. Or Peter Navarro, who, okay, I'll put him on the list of. probably the most incompetent Ph.D. that my former department ever granted. He is a PhD in economics that apparently learned nothing, certainly didn't take my class. But in any event, going after India, a country that the U.S. has been cultivating for strategic and diplomatic relations. And it's a long story, but trying to get India on side against China and the so-called quad-arranged. and so many things. And Trump ended it overnight. Because by the way, even if this 25% tariff penalty is removed, and I think it probably will be, the Indians learned a lesson that I was

trying to tell them, by the way, for years. You cannot trust the United States. And they, no, no, we've got the inside track. We've got good relations. No, you don't. There's no ability to have a trusting relationship with the United States. This is improv. land and you're not going to get the kind of relationship that you think, well, everybody in India understands that completely. Not only had the BRICS country's been pulled together, but in the media in India, in the print and online media, nonstop for days and days, what is the United States doing? We have to find our friends and so forth. So this was a blunder that has zero practical import of getting anyone to any negotiating tables, zero.

But it completely undermined one strand of U.S. foreign policy built up for years. I don't like that strand, so I like the bricks. So good. The bricks are much stronger and more united now than ever. Fine. Donald Trump united them. Peter Navarro united them. Lindsay Graham united them.

Congratulations. Totally agree. Professor, thank you so much for spending some time with us and helping us understand all these issues. We're going to have you back to get that top 10 list, though. Yeah, we do. Thank you very much, sir. Okay, let's do that. That'll be fun. All right. Thanks a lot. Have a great day. Great to be with you. Hey, guys, it's AZ Fudd. You may know me as a gold medalist.

You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a People's Princess. But now, you're also going to know me as your favorite host. Every week on my new podcast, Fud around and And find out, I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy life as I try to balance it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Natty with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time. You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court.

You'll even get to have some fun with the Fudd family. So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV, you may think you know me. but this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out listen to Fud Around and Find Out a production of IHart Women's Sports in partnership with unanimous media on the IHart Radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. When I became a journalist, I was the first Latina in the newsrooms where I worked. I'm Maria Inojosa. I dreamt of having a place where voices that have been historically sidelined would instead be centered.

For over 30 years now, Latino USA has been that place. This is Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture. As the longest running Latino news and culture show in the United States, Latino USA delivers the stories that truly matter to all of us. From sharp and deep analysis of the most pressing news, they're creating these narrative that immigrants or criminals. This is about everyone's freedom of speech.

Nobody expected two popes from the American continent. to stories about our cultures and our identities. When you do get a trans character like Imita Perez, the trans community is going to push back on that. Colorism, all of these things like exist in Mexican culture and Latino culture. You'll hear from people like Congresswoman, AOC. I don't want to give them my fear. I'm not going to give them my fear.

Listen to Latino USA as part of the My Cultura Podcast Network, available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi everyone. It's Janae, aka Cheekies from Cheekies and Chill podcast. And I'm launching an all new mini podcast series called Sincerely Jeannay. Sure, I'm a singer, author, businesswoman, and podcaster. But at the end of the day, I am human. And that's why I'm sharing my ups and doubts with you guys. Hi guys. I was sitting here recording episodes of Dear Cheekies and Cheekies and Chill. And I just had to take a time out and purge my thoughts and feelings here. on Sincerely Janae, because I've been so emotional lately, you guys. Whether I'm in my feels, I've just had a breakthrough with my therapist, or I've just had a really deep conversation with my siblings, or I'm in glam getting ready for an award show. I'm sharing my most intimate thoughts with you on the podcast.

You guys know, I always keep it real with you guys, but this time I'm taking it to the next level. Listen to Cheekies and Chill on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. So in addition, obviously, to some of the comments, we just played you about Ukraine and Russia in the summit yesterday. Trump also made some pretty interesting comments about our own elections, including announcing that he wants to get rid of mail-in ballots all together. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

Mail-in ballots are corrupt. Mail-in ballots, you can never have a real democracy with mail-in balance. And we, as a Republican Party, are going to do everything possible that we get rid of mail-in- ballots. We're going to start with an executive order that's being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they're corrupt. And do you know that we're the only country of the world? I believe, I may be wrong, but just about the only country in the world that uses it because of what's happened. Massive fraud all over the place. The other thing we want change are the machines.

For all of the money they spend, it's approximately 10 times more expensive than people. paper ballots. And paper ballots are very sophisticated with the watermark paper and everything else. He is wrong. There are dozens of countries that use mail-in ballots around the world. But this dovetails with a true social post. He also put up this, the first element in this block. Guys, we can throw this up on the screen. He says, I'm going to lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots. And also, while we're at it, highly inaccurate, very expensive, and seriously controversial voting machines, which cost 10 times more than accurate and sophisticated watermark paper, which is faster leaves, no doubt, the end of the evening as to who won and who lost to the election,

we are now the only country in the world that uses mail-in voting again. Not true. All others gave it up because the massive voter fraud encountered, we will begin this effort, which will be strongly opposed by the Democrats, because they cheat at levels never seen before by signing an executive order to help bring honesty to the 2026 midterm elections. So TLDR here, he's saying he's going to sign an executive order that will get rid of mail-in ballots.

He targets this directly at the midterm elections and says, effectively, the only reason that Democrats win is because they cheat. This comes on the heels of some comments he made after his meeting with Putin, where he claims Putin told him, you got to get rid of these mail-in ballots, this is absolutely preposterous. This is B-3 guys. Well, this is what he said Putin said. This is what he said. Yeah, exactly, yeah, which is what he claimed that Putin said, which maybe he did.

I mean, it would be the sort of thing that Putin could say to sort of play to his ego, Anyway, let's go ahead and play B3. Vladimir Putin said something. One of the most interesting things, he said your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting. He said mail-in voting every election. He said no country has mail-in voting. It's impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections. And he said that to me.

It was very interesting because we talked about 2020. He said, you won that election by so much. And that's how he got it. He said, and if you would have won, we wouldn't have had a war. you'd have all these millions of people alive now instead of dead. And he said, and you lost it because of mail-in voting. It was a rigged election, but mail-in voting, Sean. So there you go, again, insisting that we're the only country that does it.

That's just simply not true. But in any case, Zaga, what did you make of these comments? Actually, apparently, in Russia, you know what's really crazy? You can actually vote online in some places, which sounds even, frankly, like, much less. I mean, does your vote count for anything? I'm not so sure. A bunch of people showed images Trump himself has. voted mail-in, by the way.

Man, we got to get with the Russian playbook. People who cannot come to a polling station who are elderly or disabled will can request that election officials bring a portable ballot box to their home, not the same as the mail-in system. It's much more courteous. Remote mail-in voting or remote online voting

in certain regions, not in Moscow. Opposition groups have raised concerns about... I mean, I guess I shouldn't be saying this because it's not exactly the Russian elections are like the greatest... Free and fair. Most free and fair in the whole world. This has always been my biggest beef with the GOP, and it's one of those which really annoys me because two of the states,

because a Marshall is from Oregon, and I think I was there in Oregon visiting them when they were voting, and I saw them fill out their ballots, and I was like, wait, so you guys don't vote in person at all. The voter participation is actually very high, and it's super convenient. Like, they get it at home. Everybody goes through and, like, fills out their ballot, and you can go and drop it off at a number of locations. There is identity of verification, like, in terms of sending it in, but their voter participation is actually quite high. I mean, that's all what I really care about. I think high voter participation is good.

One of the things, which is also annoying, this is very outdated, is that in the old days, the Republicans would win the low turnout elections, and the Democrats would win the high turnout election. Republicans now have switched it and are much better off with low turnout voters, as we saw in the 2024 election. So you actually want more people to vote in your election. Listen, I mean, these, the people who dominate low turnout elections like suburban white ladies and activists and all these other people, you don't want

those people to be the only people who can vote because they'll drag their ass across town to go stand in line for two or three hours a day. It's the workman or electrician or something like that who is much less likely to come out and vote unless they feel very strongly to actually do so. So just purely from like a tactical point of view, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. But that's just, look, I mean, in terms of his ability to do it, as I understand it. They can try to use the DHS to set standards. But part of the reason why we are where we are with the most inaccurate voting system in terms of like compiling votes over a short period of time, it's because we have completely unfetterized elections, which is a lot of pluses and

minuses. Like pluses now when Trump is president can't just come in and decree how Oregon or whatever is going to count votes. But the minus is, what is it? New York takes three or four weeks to count vote. It's ridiculous. California and New York both take over. California and New York, it's outward. And that is the one thing I just wish Dems would acknowledge. It's like, guys, like, you can't do it this way. It undermines trust in the system. And it's just ridiculous. I mean, the most developed countries in the world can count votes in 24 hours. And even lesser developed countries like India, Brazil, Brazil has results in like 24 hours. You know, and I think in the UK, Australia, all of them. Every time I've covered their elections, we know the exact winner,

you know, the night up. Even in fractional ones, like in France, where they have to tally up various different parties and look at the percentage base. So that's the one thing where for the Democratic states, like they have to stop pretending like their voting system isn't just like weird to the naked eye. And that's what provides a lot of the stuff for the conspiracy theorists. I'm not saying they're correct. I'm just, you know, I'm pointing out. Yeah. Like the inefficiency is a huge problem. Yeah. Fair. In fairness, though, it's not California or New York's results that have been disputed by Trump. No, I'm not. Because they're not swing states. I am not.

I know, I know. I know. I'm just saying that the conspiracy theorists would find a reason to be unhappy with the results that don't go their way no matter what. Absolutely. And so that's why I think one aspect of this is you're right. Tactically, this is absolutely idiotic. We have brains and memories longer than a goldfish and can remember back to 2020 when arguably Trump lost the election because of the way that he derided mail-in balloting. And it's very possible that that made up the marchant in some. key states. It definitely did, especially in Georgia. In 2024, they learned the lesson. They had very aggressive, you know, quote-unquote ballot harvesting processes, especially in state like Pennsylvania. They really encouraged mail-in voting and, lo and behold, Trump wins. Not to say that was the only factor, but it certainly didn't hurt that they were actually, you know, availing themselves of all of the methods with which they could gather votes and get their voters to the polls. And now he seemingly has forgotten that lesson. On the other hand, because this executive order is not going to be able to get rid of mail and balloting across the country because it states quite plainly in the Constitution that the states are responsible for setting the time and manner in place of the voting, what this is really, in my opinion, all designed to do is to cast doubt on the electoral results.

So if things go very poorly for him in the midterms, which they are pretty likely to do, just historically, and judging by where his approval, writing is and how, you know, people feel about the Republican Party having complete control of D.C. right now. So that he can then say, this was all rigged, this was all fake, and really cast out in the same way that he did in 2020 with the regards to the presidential election, cast doubt on those results as well. And then you're off to the races with challenging, you know, as members of Congress come to be sworn in and to be seated, then you're challenging individual members, this was rigged, this wasn't fair, et cetera, and creating a giant chaotic mess that he can try to use to his advantage.

I think that's more what this is about. And remember, this isn't the first thing that he's done or said with regard to voting in elections. He also had a big executive order earlier. He's been trying to get some of the election roles and voting apparatus from different states sent to D.C. for analysis, so this is an ongoing project,

and this is the latest iteration of this. He also said something that was quite striking about the, you know, as Professor Sachs was just reminding and informing all of us, Ukraine right now is not a democracy, Zelensky rules by military fiat effectively, and Trump seemed very interested in learning about this when he was sitting there with Zelensky. This is before, guys. Let's go ahead and take a listen. So you say during the war, you can't have elections. So let me just say three and a half years from now. So you mean if we have, we have? happened to be in a war with somebody. No more elections. Oh, it's good. I wonder what the fake... You like this idea.

Yeah, it's really funny. Hilarious. Well, it's very hilarious, too, for Zelensky, you know, in fighting the thing on democracy to joke about canceling elections. It's just super hilarious. This is part of the hypocrisy, like, on the entire thing. Crystal, I wish I could say that it was a conspiracy theory, everything you just laid out. But considering what happened in 2020, can't really say that.

No, that's it. Yeah, it's like, well, he's joking, but is he? and we can... Well, not about the war thing, but about what you were saying about contesting potential races. It's like, well, you know, you already did it. And, you know, Congress is full of a lot of other people

or would they really willingly want to turn over power, especially if the Democrats take a bit? They could set up a huge fight with Mike Johnson, with, you know, more like establishment Republicans and the MT, you can imagine, like, the MTGs or whatever the world, or at least turning it into a show. I mean, who the hell knows, right, in terms of accepting members because the body has to accept to swear them in. I mean, I guess it could be uncharted territory.

Yeah. And here's the other thing with regard to, you know, those specific comments about, oh, hey, maybe if you have a war, you don't have to have an election, is we have seen the playbook that he is used in this administration where what does he do? He uses the pretext of a supposed emergency in order to claim more extraordinary powers. I mean, big balls being, you know, beaten up in D.C. And now we've got National Guard coming in from all over the country for this, you know, to stand around in Georgetown or on the National Mall or at Union Station or whatever. You have the tariffs are justified based on a quote-unquote emergency. This is the playbook that he has used time and again throughout this administration.

So is it really so crazy to think that this guy who has never showed any indication that he ever wants to give up back? in any circumstance and who could face, again, potential legal ramifications if he is no longer president of the United States, certainly a possibility that continues to be on the table. Do we really think that it's crazy to imagine he's considering the potential mechanisms to claim, you know, to continue to stay in power past when he, you know, is democratically elected? I don't think it's that crazy to consider, especially when, you know, we can show this, we can play this next one.

He has a place in the White House where he's got campaign merch, which first of all, again, any other president, you would be like this is a scandal, right? With him, it's just like people don't even notice. But not only does he have campaign merch, he's got Trump, 28 campaign merch, sort of like hidden away that he was showing off to the head of Azerbaijan recently in the White House. Let's go ahead and take a look at that. You know, you're not allowed to run. I've been so because everyone I'm 28 points higher than anybody everybody wants me to run but including guys you know it's funny so this guy's required you look for more years they go for me so it's sort of cool banon also says he's getting you know they're going to figure

out trump 2028 Trump says different things about this at different times but again he recently said he wouldn't run yeah you just can't put anything past him and whether he actually runs again or whether he comes up with some pretext of emergencies as we're not having the elections, whether he has some sort of a puppet who he feels like he can control and has to come and pay homage to him. Personally, I don't see any indication that until he is, you know, until he is done with this world, that he is going to just willingly hand off power. I think he won't run again, but he'll do what I predicted, which is be the king in wading down in Marlago, who can constantly derail things, you know, with a truth social post or any of that. He can be

the anointer of the Republican Party. I've used the analogy to Ronald Reagan. And I think, I've also just wondered, watching Trump now, I genuinely think he might be bored of actually being president. I remember noticing that whenever I would interview him. It's like, you know, he's almost childlike. Like, it's distracted by things that are literally on his desk. And that's why he's been doing all of these great renovation projects in the, you know, like the ball, well, you love of them. Yeah. The, you know, the Rose Garden or the gilded office or the ballroom or the flagpole. Like, he spends a lot of time. You know, looking at these things, I'm not making this to remember he went on the rooftop, right? Like, that seems to be what a decent amount of his attention is actually captured on is, like, leaving his own imprint on the White House, probably the most transformative of the physical real estate of the White House since Harry Truman, who oversaw a total renovation of the building.

Also, definitely the most, like, queer-coated president with, like, his love of Broadway musicals and interior design. Well, I wouldn't go that far because there's nothing... And makeup, and hair and makeup? There's nothing tasteful about... Maybe this is stereotypical, but there's nothing tasteful about the gilded decoration. Quite the opposite. That's what I mean. So it's actually very masculine-coded, if you ask me.

It's like, you know, it's what somebody would think is a good idea of decoration. If anybody's been watching HBO's The Gilded Age, it's a very, it reminds me. a lot of how that stuff looks. Or if you've ever spent any time in the Middle East, that's basically what the Saudis and Qataris and all this stuff think is tasteful in terms of their decoration. Just my own personal bias, just saying, you know, not exactly the way I would do it. But yeah, generally here with Trump, the most likely, look, the mail-in ballot thing is probably DOA in terms of the way that they actually want to do it. Sowing or questioning election results, nobody's going to question that. That's definitely going to happen if they lose. There's just

no question, right? In terms of how it operationalizes and all of that, I tend to think it probably won't go anywhere, but I could be wrong. You know, he is the president and he can actually do a lot of whatever he wants. And this time around, you know, he's got Pam Bondi and these other morons who work for him. So who knows, right? It's actually, I mean, there's a lot more up in the air where, you know, MAGA and other people rightfully in the past would have been like, oh, that's not going to happen. But now it's like, well, I don't know. I, I personally don't know. Did you see they brought in some other guy to be co-FBI, deputy? alongside Dan Bongino.

I mean, it's definitely like a demotion for Dan Bonino. I was thinking it was like the Missouri AG or something like that. Missouri AG promoted him to the deputy. Yeah, I think Bonino's being punished for speaking out. Yeah. If I had to guess. Because remember he had that whole like, you know, sort of like mental breakdown and then there were the rumors that he was going to resign

and then he came back and whatever. There were no rumors. It was him on the phone. I can exclusively report it. It's not a rumor, all right? Whenever he calls people and says, hey, I'm thinking of resigning. So you all know. Apparently that's going on.

Hey guys, it's AZ Fud. You may know me as a gold medalist. You may know me as an NCAA national champion and recent most outstanding player. You may even know me as a people's princess. But now you're also going to know me as your favorite host. Every week on my new podcast, Fud around and find out.

I'll give you an inside look at everything happening in my crazy life as I try to balance it all. From my travels across the globe to preparing for another run at the Nadi with my Yukon Huskies to just try to make it to my midterms on time. You'll get the inside scoop on everything. I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. You'll even get to have some fun with the fud family.

So if you follow me on social media or watch me on TV, you may think you know me. But this show is the only place where you can really fud around and find out. Listen to Fud Around and Find Out, a production of IHeart Women's Sports and Partnership with Unanimous Media. on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. When I became a journalist, I was the first Latina in the newsrooms where I worked. I'm Maria Inojosa.

I dreamt of having a place where voices that have been historically sidelined would instead be centered. For over 30 years now, Latino USA has been that place. This is Latino USA, the Radio Journal of News and Cultura. As the longest running Latino news and culture show in the United States, Latino USA delivers the stories that truly matter to all of us. From sharp and deep analysis of the most pressing news, they're creating these narrative that immigrants or criminals. This is about everyone's freedom of speech.

Nobody expected to popes from the American continent to stories about our cultures and our identities. When you do get a trans character like Imidavidez, the trans community is going to push back on that. Colorism, all of these things like exist in my world. Mexican culture and Latino culture. You'll hear from people like Congresswoman, AOC. I don't want to give them my fear.

I'm not going to give them my fear. Listen to Latino USA as part of the MyCultura Podcast Network, available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We all know, right? Genius is evenly distributed. Opportunity is not. It's Black Business Month and Black Tech Green Money is tapping in.

I'm Will Luke your spotlighting Black. founders, investors and innovators, building the future one idea at a time. Let's talk legacy, tech, and generational wealth. I don't think any person of any gender, race, ethnicity should alter who they are, especially on an intellectual level or a talent level, to make someone else feel comfortable just because they are the majority in this situation and they need employment. So for me, I'm always going to be honest in saying that we need to be unapologetically ourselves. If that makes me a vocal CEO, and people consider that. at rocking the boat. I'm so being.

To hear this and more on the power of black innovation and ownership, listen to Black Tech Green Money from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's put B6 up on the screen. This is kind of the last piece to put this, you know, the pieces all in place. This was from a little while ago, but Trump is demanding a new census to exclude undocumented immigrants and redraw all the lines. Now, do I think they're going to be able to pull this up before the midterm elections?

census collection, it takes them years. They're already preparing. So they're already preparing for the 2030 census now. So, you know, the idea that they'd be able to pull this off in time without court challenges and get all the maps redrawn, I don't think that's going to happen. But you do have, you know, the state of Texas is redrawing their maps. California, this will transition us into Gavin and what's going on there. California is likely to retaliate and redraw their maps as well.

There are some other red states. There are more red states that could redraw maps that, you know, have full Republican control than there are Democratic states. But all of this is a long way of saying, you know, I think the playbook is, number one, they're going to try to tilt the playing field as much as they can to mitigate the potential midterm losses. So that's number one. Then, and number two, as part of that, there's going to be more of this casting doubt on mail in ballots and casting down on the process and creating.

the pretext and the narrative so that if and when they do perform poorly in the midterms that he can continue to sow doubt on various electoral results. And, you know, I guess the question is whether or not it's going to be, quote, unquote, too big to rig. Because if you have Democrats, let's say, win the House, but it's by two seats, then you could see an all-out court challenges, court challenges, an all-out narrative attack on those, you know, whichever results were the closest in whichever states they have, you know, the most ability to cast doubt on if it's like could be in California and then the things you were saying about how long it takes to cast the ballots, that could come into play. You could see the way that this would all play out

because while it's not, you know, it's not the end of the world for Trump, if Democrats do win the House, it would mean that they have subpoena power and they could cause some trouble. He hasn't interested himself too much outside of the one big beautiful bill and actually passing legislation through the House and the Senate. He prefers to act through executive orders. So it's not like that aspect of his power would be curtailed. But yeah, if you got Democrats in there, you know, doing subpoenas on the Epstein files, on all of the incredible corruption rife throughout this administration, it could be an issue for him. He could end up getting impeached yet again. That's certainly a possibility that's on the table. So it's not something that he is

wanting to see unfold. Yeah, I think it's not, I don't know. I have no idea. Like you It could be several different scenarios. If you win 40 seats, then it's not, you know, like two seats challenging or whatever is not going to happen. Yeah. Or any of that. I will say on the census point, that is something I 100%. We've fought about this before, if you'll recall from the first Trump administration, about the idea that illegal should count in the U.S. census as if they deserve representation when you're literally not here legally

in the country. It is a major, actually, argument from the Commerce Clause, which originally, or the Commerce Department, which conducts the census. And if you'll recall, one of the first times that I truly realized how incompetent the Trump administration was is when they tried to do this in their first term, which, again, actually would have changed the 2020 census results, is whenever they implemented a rule, but the Supreme Court struck it down, actually, because they did not do the rule properly, misfiled the paperwork, and then Wilbur Ross lied about it, actually, at the time. But I know that there's all these legal fights about whether illegal should count or not.

But, I mean, at a principal level, it's preposterous the idea that if you're here illegally in the country. Your beef is with the Constitution. No, Chris, I've heard this lib, I've heard, I've heard, yeah, no, no, no, no, no, no, in each state. Okay, so I've heard this lib nonsense now for a long time, but there's still a lot of questions about that person's and citizenship as to how it should be. It has not yet faced any scrutiny. A whole number of persons. It has, as, I'll repeat, has not faced representation or any scrutiny before the United States Supreme Court. That may be true. Who could envision 35 million people here living illegally, getting representation in the Congress.

All right. Get the Constitution change. But the Constitution. I have to change the Constitution. The Constitution specifically refers in the places where, you know, it's only for citizens. It specifically refers to citizens. Here it says the whole number of persons in each state. So you may not like it.

You may not think that was what the founders intended. But that is what the Constitution says. As I said, it has faced zero scrutiny before the U.S. Supreme Court. the only time this ever gone down was whenever it was improperly implemented in 2018 because of Wilbur Ross. I would ask again for any person to think it is reasonable in any way that some 30, by the way, nobody even knows. That number is like probably a lower estimate. That who are living here illegally deserve representation in the U.S. Congress, which skews things. By the way, this is like the Republican fantasy dream that people get imported into the country and that it increases their

overall congressional representation in the United States. It's ridiculous. It's almost like quasi-citizenship giving the ability for a number of electoral votes. If the illegals were all deported, who even knows the number of electoral votes for the way that our system would change? So, I mean, there's just, I think it's indefensible, the idea that people here are here. I think the electoral college is indefensible. Oh, come on. I think that the way the Senate is designed is indefensible. But I don't pretend like the, you know, like it's set up any differently or like I have some court challenge I can do. You really believe people here illegally should count to the United States.

Yes, I do. For electoral college? I genuinely think that people who are here. First of all, I think that we should have a path to citizenship, so you have many fewer millions of people in the shadows who are undocumented. Well, that's very convenient, no, for the number, for legalizing these people, giving in political power. There are all sorts of reasons why people who are here in this country who are living and working and part of communities deserve political representation.

But putting my feelings aside about it, the Constitution is pretty clear about it. As I have said, it's not clear. It's never faced scrutiny before the U.S. Supreme Court and we will find out how it actually, hopefully we'll find out how it actually goes. I just think, look, again, I ask any reasonable person. Again, Texas would lose a lot of power. Fine, I don't care. Go ahead.

I don't give a shit. This isn't even a Republican thing. This is all a, you know, lib plot. I mean, that's the way that it's frequently portrayed if this was some like lib plot to bolster their representation, but it's not even that, you know, at this point. Okay, no, no, no. At this point. At this point.

California is, nobody, again, even knows the population. It could be up to 10% of the population of California. even more. California and Texas are the two states that have the largest population. Well, yeah. They're also the number two people, the most populated states. So they would still have proportional a number of representation. Yeah, they would still have larger representation. But I'm saying, though, that California, the idea of that their appropriation should be based on the population of illegals is crazy. I mean, and then same, again, I don't care whether it leads to more Republican or Democrats. This is purely a philosophical thing. It's ridiculous, this idea.

New York, sorry, my earpiece is falling out, but New York, I'm trying to think of any of the other states that would be probably majorly impacted. I think Florida as well. But my point is on that one is it will all decrease in all of the populated states. Two of the states that we just listed are red. Two of the states are blue. So fine. Again, I could care less how it actually works out like in the immediate term. I'm saying purely from this idea, and this has been a scandal, I think, from the very beginning of mass illegal immigration, that very few people ever actually want to acknowledge or talk about. And pathway to citizenship, though, is exactly, is basically rewarding people with political power for breaking the law. There's no other class of people that gets

rewarded with political power with representation in the Congress for breaking laws. Felons can't even vote in like half the states in the entire country, but illegals get represented. Which should also be changed. I also wildly oppose. I think people who are in prison should be able to vote, but I know I'm on a limb with that one. But in any case, you know, I mean, let's not spiral into a whole immigration debate, but I think we can acknowledge immigration system has been completely broken. I am of the view, you disagree, that immigrants are a benefit to the country, that it is good to have people wanting to come to this country, that they contribute to society, that they are part, an integral part of what makes America

America. And so, you know, to support pathway to citizenship to grant those people's status who have been here, have been working, who have been paying taxes, doing the right thing. I agree, I agree with that. And at this point, most of the country agrees with that as well. First of all, that's not true. It is true. No, no, it's not. Look at the polling. Okay, the polling on what?

Because the way you just framed it is a nice little rosy little picture, right? So it's like, oh, the guy who came yesterday gets to also get a pathway to citizenship. What about the guy who came 40 years ago? That's why everybody groups all immigrants in the same group and they don't divide anybody by education status, GDP, income, ability to contribute to the country, whether they're going to be on welfare? When you start to get down on the nitty-gritty, it's like, do you think people are going to be on welfare for 50 years, deserve citizenship? Absolutely not. Of course not. Most people would radically oppose that. So that's my point. It's just that broadly, the way that this is all being framed right now, and I get it, you know, you'll get smoke from this from the liberals, but the point is that when you actually pose a lot of this to people, the details matter more than anything. So this whole pathway to citizenship question and political power, I think if more people knew that their electoral system was being rigged on behalf of a lot of illegals, they would be furious about it. Now, I'm not sitting here claim the election is stolen. It's the way that it's always been, so be it. As I have always said, it should be change, in my opinion, for the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, you know, I just think that this is a classic, in my opinion, democratic, like, over-reading of what people actually think about immigration. 64% of registered voters favor giving most undocumented immigrants a pathway to legal status. 31% prefer deportation, support is strong among Democrats, 89% independent, 71% Republicans are the only ones who net oppose it. This is like saying that Medicare for all is popular whenever I'm like, well, okay, but then I'm like, oh, wait, what about transgender surgeries? Is that going to be covered by taxpayer dollars?

Absolutely not. Medical care across the board should be covered. See, this is what I mean about defining terms. And it's like, so welfare, transgender care, a vaccine, you're going to mandate all vaccines for all the time. How does that relate to Medicare for all? Because if it's a one-payer system, then they can deny you coverage and you can have seek no actual, like, individual ability to go and pick whatever type of doctor. That's what a government-run system would look like for coverage. That's not the way Medicare works out.

No, but no, but it is because if they're refusing to cover thing or you can get denied coverage, this is a classic example of all socialized medicine systems. It's one of control. I mean, that's not true. No, but it is. I mean, there are many ways you can do this. Medicare, you know, people are happy with Medicare. It costs less than the private health insurance system. And yes, Medicare for, Medicare for all is very popular. Yes. The reason it doesn't exist is because of a political class that is opposed to it. With regard to immigration, we have seen, and I think you would agree with this, a huge backlash to Trump-era policies. Yes, I agree.

That have led people to be quite supportive, actually, of immigrants, seeing them as a net benefit to society just in general, which actually majority has always felt that way, and supporting specific policy proposals, such as a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants. On the specific question of how people feel about the census, I don't know. I don't think they. know, right? I don't think they probably thought, I have no idea. But just to bring it all back before we go any further afield, so we can talk about Gavin Newsom and his freaking memes, I will just say, we'll see what happens at the Supreme Court with the census, if they're even competent enough to get it to that point, because the plain face reading of the Constitution says all persons. It does not specify citizen, non-citizen, the way that you want it to. And so we'll see. Then again, listen, the score is very political. So they may find some convoluted way

to interpret it that way, but certainly the plain face rating of the Constitution says all whole persons and we'll leave it at that. Yeah, look, we'll see with that. I agree. Uh, all right. You may know me as an NCAA national champion. You may even know me as the People's Princess. Every week on my new podcast, Fud Around and Find Out, I'll be talking to some special guests about pop culture, basketball, and what it's like to be a professional athlete on and off the court. Listen to Fud Around and Find Out,

a production of IHart Women's Sports and partnership with unanimous media on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. It's Black Business Month and Money and Wealth podcast with John Hope Bryant is tapping in. I'm breaking down how to build wealth, create opportunities, and move from surviving to thriving. It's time to talk about ownership, equity, and everything in between. Black and brown communities have historically been last in life. Let me just say this.

AI is moving faster than civil rights legislation ever did. Listen to money and wealth from the Black Effect Podcast Network on IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. What would you do if one bad decision forced you to choose between, a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth. Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York State number, and we own you. Listen to shock incarceration on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an IHeart podcast. Thank you.