Higher Learning with Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay - The Evidence Against Trump and a Vice Presidential Debate Recap

Episode Date: October 4, 2024

Van and Rachel remember the life of John Amos and discuss the family drama around his death (14:49), then break down the vice presidential debate (25:02) and dig into the unsealed evidence from the January 6 election interference case against Trump with Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney (42:18). Later, reactions to an upcoming Chris Brown documentary (57:46) and the tense exchange Ta-Nehisi Coates had on ‘CBS Mornings’ (1:13:22). Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay Guest: Kyle Cheney Producers: Donnie Beacham Jr. and Ashleigh Smith Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yo, yo, y'all, thought warriors. What is up? Our learning is on. It is I Van Lathen, Jr. And it's me, Rachel Lennon. Later on in the show, we have Kyle Cheney joining us from political and MSNBC to make some sense out of this latest filing in Jack Smith's case on Trump's election interference. That just happened on Wednesday. We want to make sure that you guys get the right information on that.

So we have an expert coming in to join us. We're going to do that a little bit later. Before we do that, we got to talk about Rachel. Rachel, you shouldn't be listening to music that makes you have violent outbursts. I'm just saying that. What are you talking about? Before the show, Rachel grabbed a gun and she was waving it in front of the camera. Wow.

And she was going crazy to Future versus Kendrick Lamar like that. So, it- Guys. believe that. Do you believe that? You can't, you shouldn't do that. Don't do that. Don't be violent. Okay, what I'm needed. Um, I also want to say something else. You know, for everyone that took the blade thing so seriously. Wait, people were mad? Wait, wait. Explain. First of all, there are two things that people were mad about. That we confused what a Sambo and an Uncle Tom are. Uncle Tom is a hero of the story Sambo is the I said Coe you said Coe

and also people were upset that we were casting Blade in the role of vamp code they didn't like that the vampires killed Blade's mother and so Blade is getting revenge on the vampires

because of that is what you know, they died is he getting revenge against a particular vampire or is he going after the mall. He's going after the mall. Okay. There's a difference. If he was just going after the one that killed

him, I'd be like, okay, this is revenge. But he said all y'all can get it. In the movie. I need to watch it. Not in the comics. By the way, there's a lot of people very upset that you've never seen Blade, which is fucking crazy. Welcome to higher learning. Welcome to higher learning, guys. I'm not a movie person. This ain't the rewatchables. In the movie, it actually turns out, Donnie, jump on.

You've seen Blade, right? Yeah, I've seen Blade. In the movie, it actually turns out that Blade's mother is with the bad vampires. Rachel's gone. I don't need to be here. I don't need to be here. No, you need to come back, Rachel. It's not higher learning.

No, go ahead. Keep going. In the movie, it actually turns out that Blade's mom is with the bad vampires. That's probably not canon to the comics and all of that stuff. Because at the end, it turns out that she's back. And Blade sees her again. I don't remember that. Yeah, she comes back.

She's with Deacon Frost. Like, she's with Deacon Frost. You know, there's a part from Blade 2 where one of the ladies actually sees Blade taking his serum, one of the vampire ladies. And she asked him, look at all the stuff that you're putting yourself through. to deny what you are. Oh. That's deep.

That hits. Bleach? Turn. This is in, this is in Blay, too. She actually says she sees Blay taking the serum. And Blaine's, because the serum,

you know, it takes away. It's like, look at what all this stuff you're doing to deny what you are. We can't. Deny the fact that Blade is, you don't want to be a vampire. You know, he is, Rachel, I'm not hating on what you have to say.

I fuck with Blade. Yeah. Yeah. Like, people are missing the forest for the trees here. And I can look at, I can look past it because I've never seen the movie. I'm sorry if it offends you. I'm just giving you my perspective. Now I am going to go back and watch it.

I'm going to make a point to watch it. Maybe I'll change it. my mind. I think that's what it is when you have fresh eyes and fresh perspectives on things, where other people who are upset about this are coming in with their pre-blade bias because they love Blade and I get it. I love Blade, but you come in blind, brand new about it, you get a whole new perspective. Appreciate you, Rachel. Thank you. I wonder if Ashley has seen it. Ashley, have you seen Blake? Yeah, I've seen it. A long time she sounds like she don't like it. She sounds like. I don't It's funny to me.

People were so mad. Hey, this tape fucking sucks. We need to take away people's podcast, Mike's. Man, fucking Blade trying to kill his own people, man.

Tell him to come try. All right. Put Blade on you. Yeah, like, look, the reality is it's funny. Come on, y'all. We're just having fun.

We're just having fun. guys. I don't know people were that upset. That's hilarious. I mean How do you never see movies? Like what? So you, so you, so, so, so, it's rated R, right? When did Blake come out? 1998? Okay. At that point

in the Lindsay household, I was only able to watch movies PG-13, PG, and G. I don't think Blade is rated R. Ashley was two years old. Yeah, I don't think, I don't think, I don't think, I don't think, I don't think is rated R. I think blade might be PG-13. I think there's a rated R cut of blade,

but I don't think it's, I don't think it's rated R. I think it's... Same. Oh, by the way, it's rated R. Sorry. Go ahead. Is it rated R? I'm pretty sure it is. There's some violence in that, that I feel like... It is rated R. It is rated R. Yes, I just looked it up.

I think that there was a PG-13 cut of Blade. Am I tripping? Maybe I was probably made for TV one. Yeah, for TV, probably. It was rated R and I was not allowed to watch it and then you just get lost. By the time I did turn of age

17, I'm not thinking about going back to watch Blade. That's what happens. That's why I haven't seen these movies. You don't get to the fuck about it. I didn't even know Blade was Marvel. It's Marvel. It's Marvel, but it's also, it's not the MCU. But it's Marvel.

Ashley said I like Twilight. I'm going to do for the late 10 which I was trying to figure out what to do because I was going to do top 10 black porn stars. I don't think I should do that. Let's not going to do that.

I'm going to do top 10 black horror movies for the Van Leight 10 for Halloween on Monday. Okay. Okay. Do you have black horror movies that you like? Are you going to put tells from the Crip in there? Tells from the Cripe is definitely not a black movie. Tells from the hood. Tell us from the hood. I mean, tell us from the hood. Tell us from the hood. We'll definitely be on this list.

Tell us from the hood. Tells from the hood. Tells from the hood. It's a fave. I'm trying to think, I mean, obviously Candyman. Candyman will be on the list for sure. What are other black horror movies? Are we considering a Blade of a horror movie? Nah, Blaine won't be on there. Blais not a horror movie. Okay. I got to think about this. Got some black war movies on it. Donnie, you have any black war movies that you like to go to? They're going to be on this list? Oh, deliverance. Oh, yeah, that was good.

That's a newbie. I was going to say vampire in Brooklyn. Does that count? That's a horror comedy. It's a horror comedy. I am going to consider it, because I really like vampire in Brooklyn. I'm going to consider it.

Kadeem Hardison might be on the list twice. Hmm. I wonder if you will consider, like, funny, other funny ones. Like, I mean, the blackening. That's a horror movie. We love that. It's great. Yeah.

Fallin with Denzel Washington. Oh, Fallen so good. Like, is that considered black? Like, is Get Out considered a Black movie? I think Get Out. Yeah. Get Out. Yeah.

Yeah. Get out. Yeah. Us. I don't know. The whole. The whole Jordan Peel situation are black poor movies. They'll definitely be considered.

Fallen won't just because it is, it's really good, but it's just like a black lead to the movie. Hmm. Hmm. That'll be a good, that's a good question, Donnie, though, because it's like, does the black lead make it a black movie? How many black people do you need in the main cast for it to be deemed the black movie? Because my next question was going to be

about Demon Night You got Jada Piquet And that What about like H2O? Because that's with like Brandy and Buster Rines Tells from the Crypt Demon Night Rachel, have you ever seen this?

Oh man, that's a good one. Man Billy Zane is so funny in that movie So Tells from the Crip So Tells from the Crip Demon Knight is about It's about one night where the demons try to take over the world.

There is somebody that protects the world from the demons bringing back the darkness. Okay, so before God said, let there be light, demons roamed the face of basically the planet. When God said, let there be light, all the demons went away. But they've been trying to come back ever since. and Jesus, when he died, his blood was put into this cross and this cross is a weapon to repel the demons. You need the blood, because the demons need this cross

to bring back demon knight. If they have the cross, they can bring back demon night. They can bring back the whole demon thing. But you put the blood of Jesus into the cross and then the demons can't touch the cross. because the blood of Jesus repels them. So you have to protect the cross. And Jada Pinkett is in this hotel,

I think in Texas, where the demons descend upon it because the one guy is protecting. I love that movie. Richard, you missed out. Maybe I'll watch that. That kind of sounds good. It is. It's fun.

They definitely weren't letting Demon Night. They definitely weren't letting Demon Night happened in the Lindsay House. Definitely. I think that counts as a black movie too because the director, Ernest Dickerson, is a classic black cinematographer. So I'm going to put that one in as a candidate. Last thing about these black movies and stuff.

Does it count? Because like, okay, so what makes a black movie to you? Well, that's what I was asking you. Is it, I mean, Donnie said Fallen because the lead was black. I think there's an argument there. obviously an all-black cast makes it black. I'm going to say there's got to be some sort of trifecta here. Director, either an all-black cast, a black director, a black lead, and a black storyline.

That makes it a black movie. Maybe like a black love. Oh, wait, no, it's horror. Never mind. Maybe if a black person doesn't die first. Oh, okay. A black A love

A love story A love story. Black love story makes a black movie. Okay. Yeah, those are my three. A black person doesn't die first in a horror movie. Because like The color purple.

Black cast. Black movie? Black cast. White director. But I said That was, but I said a black cast makes it a black movie. Black cast makes it a black movie. It doesn't work the other way.

So if it's a black director, directing a white cast, is it a black movie or a white movie? No. Okay. We'll do it. All of the horror movies on this late 10 are going to be super black.

Okay. Like Blacula black. Blackula might be on there. Okay. Blackula might be on there. pretty sure. See, Blackula was Blackula, Calvin Lockhart? No, who was Blackhula?

Who was in Blackiella? Because my grandmother... Didn't this come out of the 70s? Your grandmother dated who? My grandmother dated, no, Calvin Lockhart wasn't in Blackheel. My grandmother dated Calvin Lockhart. Mom? Yeah. She dated him for a little while. It's a picture of her and Calvin Lockhart together.

You know who Calvin Lockhart did? He was an actor from the islands. It's a picture of him and her together, and we always used to use it. Everybody look up Calvin Lockhart. He was a heartthrob of a Bahamian actor. You've seen him. And my grandmother was with him.

She had a thing for the island man. This guy named Dawn used to be around. Okay, Mama, I see you. I see very handsome. Yeah, she had a thing for him. He wasn't black for him, though. The other guy was blackish. All right, we got to get to the goddamn show.

Van Leight 10 is coming out. We said what we said about Blade. We don't change our mind. We have to talk about John Amos and his passing and everything around it. It's kind of weird what's going on here on the other side of this break. The playoffs are here, and you can predict the action all the way to the final with Fandul Predict.

Predict the spread, total points, and even the game winner. Sign up and get a $25 bonus. Offered by Fandul Prediction Markets, LLC, a registered futures commission merchant. 18 plus. Bonus is non-withdrawable and inspires seven days after receipt. Trading derivatives involve significant risk and may not be suitable

for all investors. Manage your activity with our consumer protection tool. Restrictions apply. See terms at fanduil.com slash predict slash bonus dash offer dash terms. Did you know about one and three people with plaques psoriasis may also develop psoriatic arthritis which causes joint pain, stiffness

and swelling? Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like. to be a million miles away. Trimphaya, Gusealcumab, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy, and for adults with active psoriotic arthritis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before a treatment, your doctor should check you for infections in tuberculosis.

Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about trim fire. Tap this ad to learn more about trim fire, including important safety information. We lost the Titan. John Amos died at the age of 84.

You know John Amos from a million things. Played James Evans in Good Times. then was just a stalwart's a ubiquitous figure on stage and television screen and TV and movies, should I say, came back coming to America

a whole different generation. The West Wing, a whole different generation. You would just see him. You got to say roots. Roots. Roots. He played the older Kuntukta Kintech. You got a Emmy nomination for that. Well, yeah, he was, he was Toby. He was full Toby.

It was full Toby by that point. He had broken him. Yeah. That's a tough scene to watch. It's a tough scene to watch. That they let us watch in the Lindsay household. Wait a minute.

Hold on for a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait, wait one goddamn minute. What's roots rated? What's Ruth's rated? Wait one goddamn minute now. Hold on.

It was TV. It was TV. It was TV. Wait a second, though. You mean to tell me Superpower vampire going out, black vampire

doing this thing, kicking people, can't watch it. Niggas getting their humanity stolen for them with whips, getting their feet cut off, all of that type of stuff. That's a go.

Okay. It was TV PG. Right. Okay. But I don't think that they're going to tell us, they're going to be like, no, this, at the time we didn't know about

Alex Haley, we didn't know about the inconsistencies. We didn't know about that at the time. But at the time, it was like, it was a whole, when they came out on TV, well, it came out in the 70s, but I guess when we watched it, it was kind of like,

this is somebody who went back and learned about who they were, his roots and discovered this about, and we didn't have that much stuff, I feel like. And so it was kind of looked at as historical. Yeah, hard to watch. But this happened. to people.

Maybe not. We not know Kuntikinti wasn't real. We watched it all. We watched all of that. Then we watched that drum. Oh, all my chicken George, Kizzy. We went to.

Mandingo. You know what I mean? We watched all the slaves. Remember when they came back with Queenie, Queen, with Hallie Berry? It was just Queen. It was just Queen. Yeah.

Not Queenie. It's just Queen. We watched that too. Little Raven Simone played Young Queen. We watched that too. Eyes white. I don't have to act like I'm black because I's black. I don't have to act like eyes white because I was white.

That was the beginning of the biracial plummet. Right there. What's up with y'all? What's up with the BBI? Took a little bit of a break, but I've talked to Tracy O a couple of different times. Took a little bit of a break. But that was the beginning of the plummet. It was downhill since Queen.

But back to John Amos, play James Evans for three. years in good times. He was not just an actor on a show. Okay, good times created by, you know, normally in his production company. Both Estherol and John Amos were very outspoken in the storylines and the portrayals of black characters that would be on good, good times. His character, James Evans, was killed off on the show, I think after two or three seasons because he was very critical of the shift of the show from dealing with the life of the Evans family to the show being a little bit

more centered around JJ and the whole dynamite situation. There was actually a little bit of tension on the set because they thought that the show was becoming a little bit too buffoonish and cartoonish or whatever. And so James John Amos ended up not staying on there for the entire run of the show. Very important man. His death was announced

this week. However, it appears that he actually passed away back in August. 45 days ago. Right. And there seems to be a huge deal in the Amos family about why we didn't learn of his death sooner when they learned of his death. And whether or not there was foul play involved,

some family members are alleging it's a whole big deal. Yeah, this is really sad. I mean, you already lost somebody who was a titan, so iconic, so a black actor who had a long career and was influential to so many people. That's sad in itself. Lived a long life, 84 years old. But there had been drama surrounding his family the last couple of years. I mean, his son, who looks just like him, Kelly, and the. his daughter, Shannon, had this back and forth

beath of both accusing the other of not properly taking care of the father. It seemed like John was living with Kelly, the son, but Kelly has been arrested for making threatening comments to his sister, Shannon. And John Amos had come out and said the things that Shannon were saying weren't true, that he wasn't being abused.

But then there's been reporting that he doesn't, he kind of was told to say that. or he doesn't remember. It's being reported that dementia was one of the things that he suffered with, among other things, but we just don't know now that this has come out from some parts of the family, part of the family that they just found out when everybody else did and he died 45 days ago. It's sad to because it highlights elder abuse, which is a serious thing. and one out of 10 people who are 65 and older suffer elder abuse.

And it just highlights how the elder people aren't taking care of properly. It's actually a scary thing as you think about growing older, who will take care of you? You know, you hear about it in nursing homes. You hear about it in private care. You hear about it with family. So to hear that there's potential alleged elder abuse, in regards to John Amos, a man who had a long career, who had, I believe, the finances, I'm not sure if he was in any financial trouble, but the finances and the means to have

proper care that he also is alleged to have been a victim of elder abuse. It just really highlights a bigger issue that exists within our country, but not taking care of our elders properly. Yeah. Parts of the family, like I said, only learned of the death of their father online. They didn't get it from throughout the family circles. They didn't get it from the caretaker of John Amos and then to find out that he had actually died

45 days ago would be devastated to a lot of people. Look, there are all kinds of things that we could talk about that are surrounding this, you know, how resources are allocated, like how money and fame, sometimes people's families apart. But the one thing that you hope when you get on in years is that there are people that put all of that stuff to the side to just prioritize your care and how you go on in in your twilight years.

It just seems like this is very, very messy. I would expect some litigation surrounding this. There's going to be assets that are probably divvied up and all kinds of stuff. But the most important thing here is their father, John Amos, seem to have led very dignified and memorable life. And I hope that the family can come together to remember that. Yeah. That all of the things surrounding this actually takes away from a life really well lived

and a man who meant a lot to like a lot of people. So, but I was very surprised to hear of everything that were, that was surrounding his death. And then when he died and then we figured out that he had died 45 days before that, I'm like, wow. Why was the family not? And they're even saying that he, they believe he's been cremated. So you can't determine whether or not there was any type of foul play. I mean, allegedly. And it's just, as to your point, for what we know of John Amos, it's really disheartening that this is now a

hatched his legacy to, especially when it had been discussed that there was possible elder abuse and then he came out and refuted it. So you're like, okay, everything's fine. But even though these are allegations, it does raise eyebrows that it took 45 days for his family and the public to know that this legend had passed away. Why would you, why would you not announce that? Why? Why would, why would it go like that? Why would someone go in? and then you would wait that amount of time to announce it. And then he's cremated. And then so when the family is saying the family's already alleging elder abuse

and then they were when they're coming back and saying, hey, we don't really know what happened. And we can't be sure that something didn't go awry here. It's just very, very sad. And you can't just dismiss it is what I would say. I'm not all allegations. can't just dismiss it. I would feel probably the same way if I was in a similar situation.

Vice presidential debate. Bill. Vance, Walls, Walts, Walt and Vance, their best fucking friends and they chukkins, what did you think? Is that what you, is that, is that your takeaway? They're best friends. These things are going to go, these motherfuckers going to go golfing together. They were fucking having a great time. Is it that or is it that we've just been so accustomed

to the Trump of it all, that, I mean, they were respectful to one another. I didn't walk away thinking that they wanted to play golf with each other. I felt like they challenged each other. They did the back and forth, but they were respectful at the end of the day. And that's something we have not seen in our debate process for years, years.

You know, there were certain things that, that I wished I would, as night, you know, Tim Walls is Minnesota nice. I mean, he embodies it. So there were moments that I wish, you know, I could have seen a little bit more from him, not him getting out of character, but a little bit more, you know what I mean? Vance, if you told me he was AI, I would believe it. There is a smooth creepiness that lacks, that is void of any type of emotion that is So scary to me, because he was good.

And if I knew nothing and I went and I sat and I watched that debate, I kind of would believe every word he said. It was so matter of fact, it was so, I'll keep going to the word smooth, that it was easy to believe the things that he was saying. And I know it was reported that they weren't going to fact check and then they did. But I read something. It was an opinion piece in New York Times article, and I really think it hits on the problems with the debates that we've had with Trump and Trump affiliated people that is really alarming and it takes away from the meaning of debates and kind of like why, until we usher out MAGA, we almost really don't even need to happen. Because this is what the person said.

They said, when you place lies and facts on even footing, it basically creates a problem. political sphere in which there's no fact-based reality. And I have to agree with that. You can't differentiate, you can't in real time fact-check every single thing that's being said. So lies slip through the cracks and they're mixed in with factual things. So it's like you're putting lies and the truth on the same page. And how as a viewer do you differentiate between that when you can't fact-check in real time. It's almost as if we shouldn't even have this. Well, I think that debates are good for a couple of things. Number one, I think debates are good to see how candidates react when they are faced with pushback to their ideas. I think it's

very important. I think a lot of times when I'm looking at a debate or a candidate, I'm looking at it to see how they comport themselves in a situation where they might be made in a little bit uncomfortable. And that's important for different aspects of leadership, but that I think they can keep a cool head, et cetera, et cetera. I think that you're right in the fact that I think you're right, but I think there's a little bit more to it. Candidates have always lied in debates.

Okay. But there's like no value on the truth. Like it's just like, we're just going to just tell you. I think the, no, no, no, I get it. No, you're right. There's, I think the nature of the lies of kind of. changed a little bit. The nature of the lies now, to your point and to the point of the person who wrote the

piece that you're citing, they create a new planet where everything is tied back to one group of people. Every single problem is about immigrants. Every single problem is about fentanyl. Every single problem comes back to Marxism or CRT or whatever. and you have to tell a lot of big lies in there. You have to tell people eating cats and dogs lies to sell that to people because your fear is the only thing you can use to get them out to vote.

But yeah, I think the debates are still very useful. To be honest with you, I made jokes about how friendly they were to each other. Did you have a problem with that? Did you have an issue with it? No. I really didn't have an issue with it. No. To me, it was a little bit easier to watch the debate knowing that they were trying to engage.

On ideas, Vance was lying a tremendous amount. And just to be fair, Wals was called on a lie that he told as well. And I actually thought that was the worst moment of the debate for him when they asked him about... When he had to respond to the T.M.N. Square situation, if you guys don't know, Tim Wals had said that he was doing some teaching work in China during the T.M. and Squares demonstrations from 1980. And that turns out he wasn't there. I thought that was an opportunity for him to say I was mistaken or I was there during that year. And I meant I was there during the climate of it.

I was and he hemmed and hard on it to a point to where it was like, Tim, just come out with it. Even if you spun a yarn, just unspin it right now. But besides that, I thought that I think he performed really well. I think you got a sense of why you would want somebody who, seem to be very empathetic, seemed to be very warm, and seemed to be a real human being in that position,

then someone who is literally like the goo from the Matrix. Do you remember in the Matrix when Neo, have you seen the Matrix? I've seen the first one. Okay. So in the Matrix, when Neo is brought into the real world,

and he goes to eat and they go to this little thing and they hit this little deal and this goo comes out this goo comes out basically and that's what they eat they said it's completely bland there's nothing to it

but it has all the amino acids and proteins and stuff like that essentially everything the body needs and Neo's looking at it like whatever that is J.D. Vance to me. He has everything a conservative politician needs, but it's this clear, translucent goop with nothing else, almost like to your point, he was spit out of a program to be a magabot and not an actual human being. But that also makes him a competent debater, and he more than held his own on the stage. Sure. With lies. With lies. With lies, but his ability to

sell those lines of the American people is essentially what they're running on. I mean, I'd like to know what you thought were some of the biggest ones. I know you talked about, or the biggest. I know you talked about Tim Walls and him really not being able to answer in regards to his

time. Was it Hong Kong? Is that where it was? China. Maybe it was Hong Kong, though. I think it was Hong Kong. Anyways, him kind of fumbling that, but a power moment for him was when he specifically

asked about who won the election and Vance was like, we're on focused on the future and it's like, gosh, you, that was a win for walls. And on

Vance's side, when he said that Trump had done a lot for Obamacare and advancing it, that was like one to mean one of his biggest fumbles. I mean, he lied a lot. But it's like, that's clearly not true. clearly not true. Vance is best when,

Vance and Trump are best when they're making the case to voters, even though it's not a strong case to me, but they're making the case to voters that Kamala Harris is telling you about what she's going to do in the future when she is a part of the city and administration now.

That's their strongest narrative. I think so. Without a doubt. They don't really have very much of us. Interesting. Yeah. Their strongest narrative is why aren't these changing, these changes being made now? That's their strongest narrative in terms of-

But it's so easily refuted. She's the vice president. Yeah. Not president. Or Congress. That's easily refuted to anyone who is aware of how things actually work. But if you just have sort of a layman's understanding of it, it's a case to be made. That, hey, you have this grand vision for America.

like why isn't your grand vision of America taking shape right now? The answer is it's not her administration. And by the way, the other answer is things are going pretty well if you actually look out, if you look out there for the good and not just like sell America on these harbages of doom that seemingly exist everywhere. Like they have to run on the fact that crime is up and crime is down. They have to run on the fact that the economy is terrible

when the economy, at least in parts, is doing well. I think that a lot of Americans still wish that things were more affordable and they had a little bit more discretionary pay coming into their pockets. I think all of that's real. But I think that they have to kind of sell those things in order to make people go back to the good old days of Donald Trump, which is an interesting thing because they're picking and choosing. I'd be interested to know.

I saw Byron Downs on the Breakfast Club, this was before the debate. I'm always interested in the way they cherry pick how they're going to discuss things. They say we don't want to talk about the election four years ago, it's old. They incessantly talk about things that are four years ago. When you're talking about Donald Trump's record, you're talking about the America under Donald Trump,

which is four or five or six sometimes years ago. You're talking about how Americans felt in 2017 and 2016 and 2018 and 2019. You don't want to talk about how they felt in 2020. Forget about that. But you're incessantly talking about that. However, when it comes to election interference or January 6th or whether or not there was a free and fair election, don't bring up that old stuff. You know what I'm saying? So it's, I always wonder why I sometimes when I'm looking at it, I see things.

Yeah. Like I see things. I see clear openings and people don't seem like they're taking advantage of them. When you're in the moment, maybe you don't. Byron Donald was on the breakfast club and he goes, Donald Trump is not a racist. I give an example of how Donald Trump is not racist. He used to be a member of the Reform Party.

And when David Duke came into the Reform Party, Donald Trump left the Reform Party when David Duke came in because he's like this guy's the leader of the KKK. And as soon as he said that, I thought, okay, well, fast forward to 20, 2015 or 2016, when David Duke endorses Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is asked about whether or not he accepts the endorsement of David Duke, and Donald Trump acts like he doesn't know who David Duke is. Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or

white supremacists. So I don't know. I mean, I don't know. Did he endorse me or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about. So is Donald Trump, the guy who is so creeped out by David Duke's racism that he left the party?

Or is Donald Duke the guy that won't disavow the endorsement from David Duke because he doesn't want to piss off the races that he knows support him? I always wonder why things like that don't just people don't jump. Maybe people are not as chronically online as me. Yeah, you are on another level. Like, it's really hard to keep up with you. It's really hard. Yeah, but overall, I thought, you know, who won the debate to you? I think it was split down the middle.

I mean, here's the thing. If you're not fact-checking, it was split down the middle, right? I thought they both presented well. I think they both held their own. I think they were able to go back and forth in a way. to defend what the other one stands for and what they hope to do should they be in office

and work in the administration as the vice president. If you're doing fact checking, well then Vance lost. He lied so much. So, you know, I would probably say it was split down the middle. Walls won because he didn't lose by that much.

Okay, okay, let's go back. Did you going into this debate think Walls would not do what he did? I think they were scared of it. I think we looked at it. The Democrats and the campaigns. I think they were scared of how he would do up to somebody who's essentially like, yeah, the captain of the debate team who comes across well on TV in that situation.

He doesn't come across well, extemporaneously talking or talk being authentic in front of people, but in the situation like that, if you had seen J.D. Vance in interviews and stuff like that, he normally comes across well and stuff. Do you know why I think it was easier for Walls to do well? Because Vance was lying. And all he had to do was say, because, you know, Vance kept saying,

well, under Kamala, this is what happened. To your point about him blaming her for things that have happened or they're saying happened under the Biden administration. Well, under Kamala's administration this. Under Kamala's policies this, all Tim Walls had to do is like, actually this is what

happened. That's not true. So I actually think Vance's lies made it easier for Wals, but I really wasn't concerned about him being able to hold his one, one, because I knew Vance would lie, but two, sometimes people make it seem like he went from coach to governor and that's it.

I mean, he's a congressman. This is a man who's... Yeah, he certainly laid out his articulating his policy well. But I think some people, because like I don't know if you watched the S&L skit, which was, I thought the cold open was just really funny and like Jim Gaffigan doing Tim Walls. Like I think sometimes people are like he's just the Gaglio, Minnesota nice, Midwestern guy. And it's like, he didn't go from, he didn't stumble into the position that he's in.

So I was not concerned about him being able to hold his own on that stage. All he had to do was tell the truth. And the things, as I love to say, speaks for itself. So, yeah, no, I think that Lawls performed well, and because he performed well and because he was able to, he did have the one bad moment, I thought, because he performed well and because he was able to actually make memorable moments of boxing J.D. Vance in that the debate ended up being awash, and that's kind of what you want. he came across more sincere and he came across able to talk policy points with somebody who like we said is a computer program. And so I feel like they got what they wanted out of the debate. And the debate can be looked at as something that probably won't change very much in terms of the trajectory of the election right now, which is holding pretty steady with Harris being up slightly in the national, holding minuscule leads in some of the swing. states, but seemingly holding the blue wall right now.

If you look at Nate Silvers and some other election predictions, she's in decent shape right now. We'll see where the polling lies after the debate. If the debate makes any change in the pollings or changes it in any way, and if the unsealed new evidence in the federal election case against Donald Trump changes things, which we're going to talk about next. We have Kyle Cheney joining us, the senior legal affairs reporter for Politico to make sense all of this stuff, Trump and this filing and everything you need to know. This episode is brought to you by Spectrum Business. Fast, Reliable Internet means everything for your business. And even this podcast, that's why I trust Spectrum Business.

It keep companies of all sizes connected with Internet, advanced Wi-Fi, phone, TV, mobile services, plus 24-7 U.S.-based support. Millions of business owners already trust Spectrum business. So visit Spectrum.com slash business to learn more. Restrictions apply. Services not available in all areas. This episode is brought to you by Sweet Green. The day doesn't ask for permission. Lunch window?

Gone before you saw it coming. You deserve a break that actually satisfies. Sweet Green's new wraps have got you. Real ingredients? Zero shortcuts. Everything you love in one hand. Think green goddess chicken. Garlic aoli.

Crumbled bacon, corn salsa, 40 grams of protein. Made to keep up with whatever comes next. New sweetgreen wraps hit different. Order now at order. Sweetgreen.com. Okay, you guys, big political news yesterday. Not quite an October surprise. Maybe.

Possibly. Definitely in October. Huh. When we talk about this filing from Jackson. Smith, or is it from the judge, but it's redacted, but we know who's in it. Everyone is confused, except for the people who know. And one of the people who know is a journalist working as a congressional reporter for Politico.

And as a political analyst for CNN and MSNBC, it's broken numerous stories about the Trump impeachment inquiry led by the House Democrats. He is going to help us make sense of everything that happened. on Wednesday, his name is Kyle Cheney. We are so happy to have him joining us today on higher learning. Okay, Kyle, thank you for joining us. You've been up. You've been pulling an all-dayer, an all-nighter, an all-quarterer, everything.

For people who are confused about the filing, why it happened, why now, what it means, can you just give us a little primer on what exactly took place? Absolutely. Well, good to be with you both. Thank you for having me. The trucks here is that, look, Jack Smith, who's been investigating Donald Trump for two years now, has wanted to put Donald Trump on trial back in March for trying to, you know, overthrow the election in 2020. He didn't get to do that. That's partly because the Supreme Court got in the way and said Donald Trump is immune from a lot of the things that might have been in the case you brought against him. And so they didn't throw the case out, but what they said was, you need to go back to the drawing board and look at the evidence you gathered and figure out whether that evidence should be immune from your criminal case and removed or can stay in.

And so the judge who's overseeing this trial, her name's Tanya Chutkin here in Washington, D.C., she said, all right, Jack Smith, give me the fullest accounting of the evidence that you have against Donald Trump that you think. that you think is not covered by the Supreme Court immunity ruling, and I'll make the decision as to whether it holds up. And so the filing that came out is Jack Smith's answer to that. And the reason it's so significant, besides coming out in October of an election year, is that it is, this is two years' worth of evidence that Jack Smith has distilled into one massive 165-page document that kind of lays out the strongest case he has against Donald Trump,

tells you how he would, if there were a trial, how he would run it and which witnesses he would rely on and some of the most damning pieces of evidence that he has against him. But Kyle, let me ask you this. We, were you surprised by anything that came out? Because it didn't, you know, I didn't read the 156 pages, but I, you know, I read a lot of the breakdown of it. And it's like, nothing seems to be that mind-blowing or different from what we already knew. I know that they did a superseding indictment and they took out what they believed to be official acts and everything they're pushing forward are things that they think they can move forward on. But for, for a, like, what, we didn't learn anything. I felt that way. So there's a couple of things. Number one, I think,

I think from a political standpoint, anytime this story is in the news, it's not good for Donald Trump. So that's the, that's the political side. I think for people who follow this every day, I agree with you. The overarching story has not changed. Donald Trump lost the election. engaged in a series of schemes and efforts to try to overturn the results, subvert the election, despite his defeat, and Jack Smith is trying to say those efforts were criminal. It's pretty familiar story at this point. I think what we've learned from Jack Smith in the filing is in the granular details of that. Who was telling him, hey, boss, you lost.

You didn't, this didn't happen. Again, we've seen some of that. The January 6th committee aired a lot of this evidence. Mike Pence has written in his book publicly about this, you know, Trump's effort to pressure him to try to overturn the election results. So I think you're right for people who have followed the arc of this story from the beginning. There's not some brand new chapter that we didn't know before, but there are people who spoke to Jack Smith, who didn't speak to anybody else and told them similar stories. He said, we talked to, I told him, you lost. I told him this claim of fraud that you've been screaming from the rooftops is incorrect.

It's made up. And the volume of people that told him that is actually in some ways larger than we even realized. There is one particular moment where an aid came into the Oval Office while rioters were attacking the Capitol. And just to tell him, hey, Mike Pence is safe. He's been evacuated from the Senate Chamber. And Trump apparently responded, so what? Again, is that a brand new thing, that mentality, that attitude? Not really, but that moment is new.

and it adds to the weight of, I think, some of the earlier evidence that's come out. And I think if you're a juror sitting in that trial someday, if that trial ever happens, that would be one of those eye-popping wow moments. Let's talk about the timing of this. You're going to get people who are supporters of the former president or in his political sphere that say the timing of this filing and it being made. news is election interference. That this is done to injure

former President Trump at a very crucial time at this election to turn a tight election even further against him and build momentum with Harris-Waltz. It seems to me that you just said a second ago that had the Supreme Court not made its ruling that Trump celebrated that this filing wouldn't have come out. So in a way, is this another example, not to lead you, of them kind of shooting themselves

in the foot a little bit? Well, it's not leading to me. It's the answer I would have given you, but I think that's correct. You know, look, again, Jack Smith wanted to put this trial on in March, and Trump's tried and true strategy his entire life in any legal context is delay, delay, delay, as long as you possibly can. The Supreme Court did exactly what he wanted, almost exactly what he wanted. He would have loved him to delay even more.

but they held this case for eight months, just in total suspended animation while they decided whether he was immune from the charges. Had they said he was absolutely immune from everything, they would have thrown the case out, which I think what he really wanted. But they kept it, they did keep it alive. But they sent it back to the court in July,

and it's taken since July to sort of process these immunity issues and apply their ruling to the evidence in this case. So why this filing is coming out now is pure, you know, I mean, look, the judge could have said, I don't want to engage in this process during an election cycle, but one thing that Tanya Chuckin has been is consistent, that I will not let the political calendar dictate the criminal process in my courtroom. Like this is the legal process, you know, the justice system requires me to ignore that. it's hard for us as, you know, or for anybody really who's just sort of a random observer of this to sort of understand that. But I think in her view is her obligation to move forward as soon as the case was back in her courtroom.

In reading some of the things that have come out and even in just listening to you, I feel like the judge has almost an impossible task when it comes to determining what's considered an official act and what's considered an unofficial act. And I'm wondering, and I don't know how much you can speak to this, how can she go about making the distinction when, apologies, how can she go about making the distinction when some of the things that have come out in this, in the brief show are during this transition of power period. So how do you deem official acts and unofficial acts during a transition? Like when did it change? And a lot of like, the Twitter activity seems to be something that's really focused on, that they're pushing forward, that that's an unofficial act.

If you could make some sense of that. Sure. Or, yes. I can try. It's an enormously wrenching issue. I mean, this has been, there have been other contexts, you know, Donald Trump's being sued for things that happened on January 6th, too, by people who were police officers who were injured and members of Congress even. And there's a whole immunity question there about if Donald Trump, if his, if his effort was. to protect the sanctity and integrity of the election in his role as commander in chief and

president, that would be immune conduct in most circumstances. What Jack Smith argued in his brief, and that was really the purpose of this brief, was it's very clear that Donald Trump was not acting as president when he was undertaking this multifaceted plan to subvert the election. He was in his phone conversations, he was talking about his political prospects, he was talking about himself as a candidate. He was excluding White House officials from key meetings with some of his alleged co-conspirators. And when he filed his legal arguments at the Supreme Court and elsewhere, he was saying it was done in his private capacity, his capacity as a candidate for president. So there's all these breadcrumbs that he was leaving that Donald Trump was even for saying,

I'm not taking these steps as president. And so the judge is going to have to look at this and say, okay, was Donald Trump really just trying to carry out his duty to ensure that the election was accurate, which is the president does have a role, and the executive branch has a role in ensuring, you know, civil rights of voters are upheld, and that, you know, the certification of things of the presidency is carried out appropriately. But Jack Smith, his argument is very clear on which side of the line Donald Trump was for almost the entirety of this process. And Judge Chuckin will have to decide whether she agrees with that.

Trump will get a chance for rebut it in a filing in a few weeks. And so we'll see what his best case is. But this is Smith's best case to say, no, this is not immune conduct. You've read through the entire document. In terms of damaging headlines, like things that would make the Trump campaign go, oh, my God, I wish you could come out now. What do you think some of those things are? I think, I mean, as I said earlier, I think any time they're talking about this issue,

and the reminding voters of this issue, it becomes a salient political problem for Trump. I think, you know, if you watch the vice presidential debate, the best moment that Tim Walls had was was when he got J.D. Vance to basically refuse to say Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and remind people of the consequences of that kind of refusal to acknowledge reality. And I think that, so that, That on its own is something the Trump campaign is saying, this is a headache. We don't want to deal.

We don't want to remind voters who might have been skittish, but it was four years ago of why they were skittish four years ago. I think in terms of specifics, there's that Pence moment I mentioned where he basically, again, a reminder to everyone that he seemed indifferent to whether Pence was safe that day. We know we know he never called him that day. You know, he's watching the riot on TV.

He knows Mike Pence is in that building. and being specifically targeted by the people who are breaking in, never calls and never asks how he's doing. I think that's something that people in Pence's orbit remember very well. And I think there are other moments where, you know, Donald Trump was claiming, for example, that 30,000 non-citizens voted in Arizona in 2020. And Jack Smith said he made that number up.

And he actually said that Trump changed the number several times over like a two or three weeks stretch, went from 30,000 to several hundred thousand, back down to 50,000, then they suddenly went, revise it back down to 30,000 again. And the reason that is a headache, I think, now, is because Trump has revived some of these claims about non-citizen voters in the 2024 cycle

that are not really supported by evidence, but it's kind of, you know, a deja vu moment that he's making allegations about election fraud without evidence and kind of teeing up with some sort of a similar chaotic environment that we saw four years ago. So what happens next? You already mentioned that Trump will file his response

in a couple of weeks. Do we think that the judge will make a decision prior to election day? Obviously, if it doesn't go Trump's way, he's going to appeal it. We're going to be in this whole circuit. It's going to go to the Supreme Court assuming they accept it.

It's just on and on and on and on. What do you think will happen next after he files his brief. Everyone in this process expects us to be appealed again. This is going to go back to the Supreme Court no matter what. If Trump loses, he'll appeal. If Smith loses, he'll appeal, this is not going to trial anytime soon. If Donald Trump wins the election, this is never going to trial.

This case is gone. And so in some ways this filing last night, one of the reasons it's important is this may be the last, certainly the last pre-election moment where we're going to learn something new about this, which is again why you have the Trump ally, Trump and an ally yelling election interference because it is at a sensitive moment. It's October. But I think this may be instead of a trial,

instead of some high stakes hearing where Mike Pence testifies in public or even a report that the special counsel sometimes issues, we have this filing. And this is basically the Smith report of the best evidence he's got. And so Chuck in I suspect she probably won't rule before the election

because I think Trump's filing is due at the end of October. It's going to take her some time to sort of go through it all. I think Smith gets to reply to it. It's going to be a whole back and forth that could probably go even into December. But if Trump is won, it's a moot point. If Trump has lost, then there's a little time for everyone to sort of process some of these issues.

Kyle, we thank you for joining us on Higher Learning today. Thank you for making sense of this. We need you over on true social. We need you to be there. I lurk. I lurk on true social. I have to. We need you over there.

We need because you've read through 160 pages of this. We're going to come back to you on this stuff because I started to read through the document and then I thought, no. Hopefully I can distill it for you. I'm always happy to join you. You definitely have. Thank you so much for joining us, man. We appreciate you. We'll tap it.

with you when there's an update on this particular matter. That sounds good. Did you know about one and three people with plaques psoriasis may also develop psoriotic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness, and swelling? Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away. Trimfaya, gusalcumab taken by injection is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaques psoriasis, who may benefit from taking injections or pills or

phototherapy and for adults with active psoriotic arthritis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before a treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or if you need a vaccine.

Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Trimfaya. Tap this ad to learn more about Trimfaya, including important safety information. This episode is brought to you by WeatherTech. Everyone knows winter is the MVP and making a mess.

You don't need WeatherTech floor liners in the summer unless you hit the beach or go camping. Then you'd want a cargo liner. Or a road trip goes sideways, ketchup goes rogue, ice cream drips. Yeah, you'd be pretty happy about those weather tech seat protectors. So just to be clear as the mud, you're inevitably going to step into the summer. You don't need WeatherTech unless you plan on doing summer. Visit weathertech.com today. I want to ask you something, Rachel, fair or foul?

Talk to me. There's a Chris Brown documentary, a history of violence that's premiering next month. The Hollywood Reporter announced that investigation discoveries, Chris Brown, a history of violence, will premiere on October 27th, kicking off the network's third annual, no excuse for abuse campaign. A trailer was released this weekend. A woman says on a voiceover, Chris Brown's an amazing and talented musician. But let's call the thing a thing.

He's an abuser of women consistently and unapologetically. In a statement, the film's producer said this. With expert and cultural commentary layered throughout, the documentary provides thoughtful reflections into each survivor's experience and the psychological destruction in the aftermath of their abuse. following the premiere, Sunny Hofsten will lead a post-screening discussion with experts and advocates. So, let's be honest.

Let's be honest. Let's be honest. Okay. There is a large part of the culture who have just accepted Chris Brown for who he is. His past and all things that they've done in the past at all. And I would say that here on higher learning, that we're a part of that. We have been. I would say that when we talk about Chris Brown, we do not talk about Chris Brown in the same way that we discuss an R. Kelly or discuss anyone else who's had.

Sure. Right. So when we talk about, we'll say, hey, is Chris Brown the best dancer? And we won't say, hey, Chris Brown is, we would not say, if we were doing an R&B situation and we were talking about R&B. Or Kelly or someone else. You wouldn't put our ground. Right. Like you,

it, it, we, it's, there's something that has followed the other guys, uh, that hasn't followed Chris. And I think it's because a lot of people look at this as Chris made some

mistakes when he was a younger man or he did some things. How long are you going to come down on Chris Brown for the mistakes that he's made? There's a lot of things. Rihanna and Chris Brown got back together. A lot of artists continue to work with Chris Brown. All kinds of things. It seems as if. he doesn't, it doesn't follow him.

It only follows him with people that choose to prioritize it a lot and a lot of people have chosen not to. Yeah, I think people look at violence on a spectrum and even more, I think naturally, but even more so when it comes when you have celebrity attached to it. And I think the difference that I'm not making an excuse for because the only reason I had a little pushback and you said we're guilty of it on higher learning,

absolutely. We talk about Chris Brown and we don't automatically talk about the history of violence attached to him. But I remember when we had a whole discussion on it and it was when Kelly Rowland had gone on stage and she got food for accepting an award for him. And I can't remember your response, but my response was kind of like,

well, if Rihanna got moved past it, shouldn't we? You know, the person who was the victim, that's kind of the stance that I took and Reddit was like, it's not just Rihanna. There's all this long history, and I was way more educated on other instances,

much later than Rihanna of Chris Brown being linked to violence against women. And so we came back and we talked about that. So that's the only reason I gave a little pushback because we have acknowledged that, we were like we were wrong. We kind of were flipping about this one thing and there's obviously more to it.

I think the reason also, you're right, the culture is going to be upset about this. And from what I've seen on Twitter, they already are. There's a lot of the culture who wants to be defensive of Chris Brown and say leave Chris Brown alone. To your point, Kelly Rowland accepted an award, celebrities, a lot of them attended his tour. They were posting pictures.

Nobody saw it any other way other than celebrating. Chris Brown, Chris Brown is found viral. It's that he's looked at in a completely different way. I think some of that is because if you're comparing him to an R. Kelly or even a ditty,

that has legal, obviously he's been in trouble with the law, but the level of that violence and what has come out and what we have continued to learn if we're talking about a spectrum, and I'm not saying, once greater than the other. I'm obviously condemning violence. It hasn't been, Chris Brown hasn't

been prosecuted on that level. Does that make sense? And I think that's why people are willing, I'm not saying that's right. I think to your point of why the culture keeps giving him a past is because they say, well, he hasn't done what R. Kelly does. Well, he hasn't done what Diddy does. And what what I would say to the culture is there was a time where we excused R. Kelly in that same way. And there was a time when we excused Diddy. We looked past it even though there had been rumblings and or things that had come to light in the court system with R. Kelly and Diddy. But we didn't know the level of it. So I don't think it as a culture we should be as flippant when somebody has a history of violence because you don't know the level or degree to that violence.

And it sounds like we're going to learn more in this document. what I think about it is that like there's there is a hesitation from a lot of people to to toss Chris aside because like we know Chris right

and when I say we know him I mean if you look at the arc of who Chris Brown is you meet somebody I'm going to describe it in the most sanitized way okay you meet

someone when they're young. They have a lot of promise. They have a lot of talent. They don't have the best and most stable background. They go on to accomplish these amazing things because of how talented they are, you know, musically, athletically, all of that stuff. Then they fall upon hard times. They do something abhorrent. And you're asking yourself a question that's particularly hard to ask yourself in communities that I grew up in, which was, do we have to say goodbye to this person forever? Like if you've ever been in a courtroom when somebody was on trial for something and you knew that they did it, you always wonder, damn, is this the end for him, for her?

Did they fuck up too bad this time? Did they hurt someone? And I'm talking about, I've been in situations like this where people, have like killed people. And you and you're, you're, you're like, damn, like this is this how this story ends? And there's a part of you, particularly in black communities,

or I'm not going to say black communities. I'm talking about the way I grew up. They just didn't want to throw away a talented black man. Like a talented black man is seen as a piece of gold, a diamond, done terrible things, you'll hear, but man, you should have seen him dance. You should have heard the way that boy could sing. That boy could sing or that boy could run that football, man. That boy could shoot a basketball. If he could have just focused on that, we would have

had it. That boy was so special. That girl could really do this if she just wouldn't have got hooked on that or you should have seen what they could do. And there's a tragedy that's felt when for a reason you lose that person. And it seemed like Chris, in some kind of way, had made it through it. You wanted him to figure it out again. You wanted that not to be the end of his story. But you wanted it not to be the end of his story because you didn't want to have to throw away all the talent that he was capable of.

And now, still when you see him do it, his thing, you're like, God damn, man. People go back and they look at Chris Brown and they relitigate his career. What if that would have never happened? Who would Chris Brown have been? What would Chris Brown have been capable of? Would he have been Michael Jackson? Would he have been bigger than Usher?

Would he have been all of this? And his talent is so, it's such a big deal that he can overwhelm you with it. And you could just get caught up in all of it, right? And this documentary is going to be met with a bunch of people that say a black man can never escape his past or a black man is always being held to the standard of the worst mistake he ever made. Like I can list you a name of white people right now who are victims who have committed domestic violence. Like just regular Christian Slater, like Emil Hurst. just for my time at TMZ, just white guys

who have committed domestic violence, who have been victims, who have been perpetrators of domestic violence are not Tommy Lee. When I was at TMZ, I remember

there was this whole thing that they weren't going to let Chris Brown tour in Australia because he had been guilty of domestic violence and they had a rule against it. And I remember my first thing my knee jerk was to say, well, would they let Molly crew to her there?

Because Tommy Lee or whomever else, like these guys, these, there's Sean, Sean Connery is on an interview with Barbara Walters saying, yeah, you should smack your wife around a little bit. Like if she gets out of line and she just won't let it go, you smack her in her, no shit, smack her. Like she gets out of line.

Sometimes women just won't let it go, won't let it go. You take your hand, you pop her in the mouth. And you start to think, is it fair that, we have to get rid of our Chris Browns and they don't have to get rid of their Christian Slaters, they don't have to get rid of their Sean Conneries, they don't have to get rid of their

Tommy Lees. And people are going to say that. And this documentary is going to have to make the case about Chris Brown who he is and why he is, to those people and why his violence is something that can't be culturally tolerated at all.

But I'll tell you this, a lot of people don't need that case made to them, and they're not wrong. The reality is, if someone is guilty or continuously surrounding themselves with the violence that Chris Brown has been consistently surrounded with since the Rihanna thing and more incidents, which his documentary will have to make the case, if an effect is able to make the case, people do not have to tolerate that. You do not have to tolerate that. You don't. You don't have to tolerate that in one iota. I wonder, though, with this situation, why myself and a lot of other people, why we seemingly have.

Like, it seems like his outbursts or his drug usage, rumored with drug usage. I don't want to hang anything on him that I don't have any evidence for a case. prove. It seems like all of this stuff, and even the violent part of it, it seems like all of it has been excused as a part of his personality in a way that's different than it is for a lot of other people. I feel like I just don't hear about it in the same way. Obviously, Rihanna we heard about. But like, even with Karuchi, I feel like you heard about it. Maybe it was out there and it just quickly,

we just quickly moved past it. That's why I was so surprised. He's laughed down on Tiana Taylor a couple of years ago. And Usher had to, at the skating thing, Usher had to take him away from Tiana Taylor. And that is on video to a large degree. I mean, like you could see it. And I think the culture would say, well, he has a temper. He's an anger issue.

But it's, and I think like these are the little things they do to excuse it. But I think one of the most powerful things is this, is one of the producers from this film. is saying, and I think we're going to see something that we haven't seen before in this way, the fact that each survivors experience and the psychological destruction and the aftermath of their abuse is going to be displayed in this documentary. I don't know if we've seen it like that. I wonder, even as I'm rereading it, first when I read this, I thought, oh, we're going to hear from the survivors, but then I don't know if they're just speaking to it or if we're hearing from them. If we hear from them, to me, this is another level. Yeah, I think you're probably going to

hear from. I really hope people take the time to hear. I really hope people take the time to pay attention. You're probably going to hear from people you haven't heard from before. Yeah. That would, that that, that's what I would expect. I would expect that you're going to hear from people that you haven't heard from before, that you're going to hear stories that you probably haven't heard before and that this documentary is going to lay out a case that extends beyond what we've gotten in the headlines. Because I doubt that, I mean, you certainly know that Rihanna will be a part of it. I doubt that Karachi would be a part of it.

You're probably going to hear from people that you hadn't heard from before. I think it's going to be like very, very, very culturally divisive. It's going to be something that a lot of people that people have a tremendous amount of respect for are going to say is unfair, but the truth is never unfair. Now, there are different versions of the truth,

but the truth is never unfair. So it's just I was interested to see the the response to it. And since here on this podcast, we've been taken to task. I think rightly so for not talking about it in a holistic enough way. It'll be interesting to see how that goes. I want to know if you have a problem with this exchange right here. Donnie, Tana-Hase-Cote's. Tana Hisi.

Tana Hisi. Hasei. Hasei Hasei and Hasi. Oh, Hisi Hasi. Hisi and Hasi. Come on. Tana Hasehhh, Kisi and Hasi. He's Hase. Kisi Hasi.

Come on. Niga, Hasei and Hasi. Let's do it. Hisi Hasei and Hasi. Come on. Hisi Hasei and Hasi. Just like that. I come up with a song like that.

You say anything and then say, that's a song. That was definitely a song. Let me hear the conclusion. Let me hear the clip. Hold on for a second. Have you heard my, my, have you heard my, have you heard my Lord of the Rings song? Freaky Little Hobbit?

Go ahead. Dono. Dunno. Dun do, do, do. Don't do. Don't do. Don't do. Don't do.

Don't do. Don't do. Don't do. Don't know. Don't know. Don't do. Don't do. Don't.

Don't. Don't do. Don't do. I'm a freaky little Hobbit who loves to fuck I'm a freaky little hobbit who loves to fuck I take Gandals face

put it in my butt take Gandal's face put it in my butt because I'm a freaky little hobbit who loves to fuck I'm a freaky little hobbit who loves the fuck that's my first

that's Frodo's sex positive song I'm doing a whole record Frodo is talking Frodo is talking about how he wants to have sex with all of the members of the fellowship of the ring that's the he will have sex

with all of them Okay. We've already received a thumbs down from Ashley. I think it is our responsibility on higher learning to please tell you you're going the wrong way. You don't need to do this. You had me at the beat. The beat, the beat, I was like, okay, okay. I feel the beat. That's the baseline.

Ashley pop on real quick. But freaky little hobbit that loves the fuck. Like, I just. Freaky little hot. No. No. Ashley, pop on real quick. That song came to me in a dream.

It's more like a nightmare. that song came to me in a dream that song like I I dream of songs and different ideas I dream of them like I have I had a dream last night

this is not a flex that I had a dream last night that Jamie Fox was mad at me we were in this spot and Jamie Fox confronted me and then I stood on business and I like I was like whatever

and then I woke up from that dream into another dream where I was happy that Jamie Fox wasn't mad at me right in another dream, inside the dream. And then when I woke up this morning, I wasn't sure whether or not

Jamie Fox was actually mad at me or not. I hate when that happens. I didn't, I swear to God, I didn't know whether or not I had beef with Jamie Fox or not. I didn't know what was real. Did you ask him? No, I got to call him up. I got to hit my man

like Charlie Mac. Me and Jamie Fox's good. I don't think anything's happened. Ashley, as a maker of songs, What's wrong with Freaky Little Hobbit? I think I just didn't like the lyrics. Sorry. It was a good start.

Don't get your feelings. Just go back and rework it. Just go back it. You're on the B. Just go back and rework it. Yeah, come back with new lyrics. No, that's the song of the Sex Positive Hobbit song. Oh.

It could still be that, but you could rework it. Okay, enough. I've never even seen Lord of the Rings. Not a one. Okay. Oh, Jesus Christ. That's true. Thank you.

Actually, every time I have a song now, I'm going to run the song by you here on the podcast, right? All right. I'll be here. I've got a lot of songs. Got a lot of songs. Okay.

I like a song. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, Donnie, can we get back to Tana Hasecoq, please? Okay. Tana Hisi, Hase, Hase, Hase, Hase, Hase, Hase, Hase, Hase, Hesse, Hase. Okay, Donnie, give me the clip. When I read the book, I imagine if I took,

Your name out of it took away the awards and the acclaim, took the cover off the book, the publishing house goes away. The content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist. And so then I found myself wondering, why does Tanahashi Coates, who I've known for a long time, read his work for a long time, very talented, smart guy, leave out so much. Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?

Why not detail anything of the first and the second Intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits? And is it because you just don't believe that Israel in any condition has a right to exist? Well, I would say the perspective that you just outlined, there is no shortage of that perspective in American media. That's the first thing I would say. I am most concerned always with those who don't have a voice, with those who don't have the ability to talk. I have asked repeatedly in my interviews whether there is a single network, mainstream organization in America with a Palestinian-American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice to articulate their part of the world. I've been a reporter for 20 years. The reporters of those who believe more sympathetically about Israel and its right to exist don't have a problem getting their voice out.

But what I saw in Palestine, what I saw on the West Bank, what I saw in Haifa in Israel, what I saw in the South Hebrun Hills, those were the stories that I have not heard. And those were the stories that I was most occupied with. I wrote a 260-page book. It is not a treatise on the entirety of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. But if you were to read this book, you would be left wondering why does any of Israel exist? What a horrific place committing horrific acts on a daily basis. So I think the question is central and key. If Israel has a right to exist. And if your answer is no, then I guess the question becomes,

why do the Palestinians have a right to exist? Why do 20 different Muslim countries have a right to exist? My answer is that no country in this world establishes its ability to exist through rights. Countries establish their ability to exist through force, as America did. And so I think this question of right to Israel does exist. It's a fact. the question of its right is not a question that I would be faced with with any other country. But you write a book that delegitimizes the pillars of Israel.

It seems like an effort to topple the whole building of it. So I come back to the question, and it's what I struggle with throughout this book. What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place and not any of the other states out there? There's nothing that offends me about a Jewish state. I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy no matter where they. They are. Muslim and excluded. I would not want to state where any group of people laid down their citizenship rights based on ethnicity.

The country of Israel is a state in which half the population exists on one tier of citizenship, and everybody else that's ruled by Israelis exist on another tier, including Palestinian-Israeli citizens. The only people that exist on that first tier are Israeli Jews. Why do we support that? Why is that okay? I'm the child of Jim Crow. I'm the child of people that were born into a country where that was exactly the case of American apartheid.

I walk over there and I walk through the occupied territories and I walk down the street in Hebron. And a guy says to me, I can't walk down the street unless I profess my religion. I'm with another path. No, no, no, no. This is very, very important. It is.

It is. It's extremely important. Let it lay down. I'm working with the person that is guiding me is a Palestinian whose father, whose grandfather and grandmother was born in this town. and I have more freedom to walk than he does. He can't ride on certain roads.

He can't get water in the same way that Israeli citizens who live less than a mile away from him again. Why is that okay? Why is there no agency in this book for the Palestinians? They exist in your narrative merely as victims of the Israelis, as though they were not offered peace at any juncture, as though they don't have a stake in this as well. What is their role in the lack of a palpit?

I have a very, very, very, very moral, compass about this. And again, perhaps it's because of my ancestry. Either apartheid is right or it's wrong. CBS Morning's co-hosts Tony DeCopal. They accused him of being an extremist. A lot

people say it was an ambush or that he was jumped. That was on Monday's program and Ta-Tanasi host was discussing his new book, The Message, a collection of essays during which he details a visit to Palestine. And they had a back and forth. Now, this particular

anchor, this co-host, has two children and an ex-wife who live in Israel. Tanahasa Coates has traveled to Palestine. He's traveled to Israel, and he has been very clear about his experience there and some of the discrimination and the dehumanization for the Palestinian people that he's seen there. and he writes about it in the book. A lot of people had a problem with that exchange. They feel like Tana Hase was either ambushed, he was jumped,

or that the use of the term extremist was uncalled for or out of bounds from the CBS host there. I had absolutely zero problem with this exchange. I'm wondering if you did. When you say you have zero problem, I think you feel that way because Taanahisi handled it so well.

And it was... Tanahisi. Is it Hasee or Hisi? I feel like I said Hisi. I thought it was Tana Hisi. You keep saying Tana Hasi. Hase. Hase. Hase. Hisi. Hase. Hase. Hase.

And that's why you're confused. Hase. That's why. Okay. Okay. So you don't have a problem with it. It was interesting to watch, particularly for morning TV. So I understand.

why you wouldn't have a problem with it. But I think the reason you didn't is because Taunahisi handled it so well. And it isn't what he, him handling it as far as his temperament. It's what he said. And I don't think you could really debate with what he said because even when Nate Berluson introduced Tanahisi Coates to this segment and this book, The Message,

the way he introduced it, he said, it's a trio of interconnected essays that examine how the stories we tell or avoid telling can shape and distort our reality. That shaped the entire message of this book, which as you already spoke to, was his experience as he traveled

through these different places. I have a problem with it because that's not journalism. That's not journalism for morning TV. I always say that it would be hard for me to do morning TV because I'm too opinionated. It would be hard for me to just report and ask questions that allow the interviewer to answer and not place my opinion into the question because that's not what they're

supposed to do. There was a way to ask this question, but Tony could have asked this question without offering his opinion. He could have said, what would you say to people, why are you laughing? Why would he do that? Because they don't give opinions. That's not what they typically. He could and he's not being reprimanded in any way,

probably because of the side that he was speaking towards. But you can't, you're not supposed to give your opinion. You're supposed to ask questions. He was clearly biased for what you said, his personal reasons of having two children and an ex-wife that live there. and he was upset that the Israeli side was not reflected in this book. What he could have said, which still would have been able to express his sentiments, was saying, what would you say to people who feel like the Israeli side was left out of your book?

And then Toneheesie would have explained why he left it out. But instead, it was a debate. And I'm not saying it wasn't fun to watch. I'm not saying it wasn't interesting. Obviously, we're talking about it here. But that is not the journalism you see on morning TV. You just don't. And even Joy Reid, I saw her post.

She was like, this is bad journalism. Because there's forms to, there's ways to it. We could do that here on Higher Learning. You could do that on the night show. I saw what she posted. And it was interesting. Joy is a top flight. 24-carat gold

journalist, but she makes a living doing that. Right? She makes a living doing that. Just to be fair. Look, I would expect, in terms of Tonehees' response, I would expect him to be able to respond that way because I've heard him articulate his feelings

on his subject so many times before this. And he wrote... He wrote the book. He wrote the book. So I would expect that he could defend his positions and his reason for writing the book and his reason for including that part of the book in the book if he's asked about it. I would expect him to be able to do that, right? If I'm sitting in front of someone, don't matter if it's morning, evening, whatever, and I have that type of feeling if that would have been, you know,

someone who I have vehement disagreements with, no matter whose side of this argument as I watch that interaction that I'm on, if there's someone who I disagree with the way something was framed or with the way something was written or if I feel like someone was underrepresented or overrepresented, I am going to ask, and the way that I'm asking is going to be pretty straight up. It seemed like to me they were worthy intellectual adversaries. Now, whether or not Tony was doing the work of Israel or the United States, of the network, or whatever, or whether it was his own personal work, because of his close personal ties to Israel, his children live there.

Perhaps he's concerned for their safety, whether he should be or whether he shouldn't be, perhaps he is. I don't think that there's anything wrong with that back and forth. I think Tanahasi has a very, very distinct view of this, and it's from having been there, and he frames it from being the son and the grandson son of Jim Crow, an ethno state where certain people's rights are held to be better and more important and different than other people's rights will never fly for him. And then you have all

these other people who I guess want to make arguments as to why Israel can only exist as a Jewish state if Jewish supremacy is codified in Israel. That to me is a conversation that people should be unafraid to have, either unafraid for being blackballed from networks and not getting any books or TV deals or nothing like that. And also unafraid to have it from the fear

that they are going to be canceled or whatever. Like I miss when people would have conversations where they were like, this is what the fuck I think. This is what the fuck you think. Don't matter the form. Let's get to it. Let me further my point. One, I believe it's bad journalism

because there was a, There was a bias and there was, and there appeared to be emotion in the exchange. I'm not saying we shouldn't have that. If there was more of that, I would probably would try to be on more TV. We should have that. But that's just not normally what you see, which is why Gail was like, okay, so why don't you sum this up in 20 seconds? Because that was her next, that was her, that was, Gail said, not, not on my show.

But to further my point, it was, when I say he got caught up in bias and emotion, when he The book is based on him telling stories of what he saw. Tony goes to call him an extremist. I didn't think that was fair. Then he says, and we haven't read the book yet, but he says, is it because you just don't believe that Israel in any condition has a right to exist? We're missing.

Like, that is not what, from my understanding, what Tani Hisi was trying, like you're missing the point of him telling these stories. It wasn't just that simple. And it's like there's an accusation of painting Tana Kisi as a specific person rather than the message that he's trying to convey in this book.

And I don't think that that is what Tony's role is in that role on that show. That's why I call it badger. He answered the question perfectly, right? That's why I think you did. Yes, he did. No, give an example. Emmanuel Acho came on the show, right?

And when Emmanuel Acho came on the show, I listened to Emmanuel Acho for a little while. And after I listened to him, Frank, your homeboy, and then after I listened to him, frame all of his thoughts in the way that he looked at it, I'm like, yo, this is what I think of that. This is what I think of that. And this is what I think of you doing that, right?

This is how I look at that. What do you say? Not would you say blah blah blah. This is what you feel like to me. You feel like the emotional butler or whatever. Like this is what you feel like. Perhaps I should have gone about that in a less insulting way. Okay.

However, to me, I've gotten the substance of what you're talking about intellectually. And this is what it makes you look like to me. Now, you want to talk about this or no? I don't think that there's anything unfair with that it might be, it might be rude, it might be mannerless, it might be lacking a little bit of coof, but I don't know that you write a book and then you expect people not to take away things from the book and ideas from the book and make judgments and assertions about the book after you wrote it. And I just think, like anything else is kind of treating him with kid gloves

when he's on there. He, okay. I just think that if he was on a night show, I would expect that conversation. I'm not saying, like, it would be more interesting. Again, I'm repeating myself. If those conversations were had,

that's not typically that place for that. And it just seemed. Remember when Matt Lauer challenged Tom Cruise, ban once again chronically online? Do you remember when I've watched this online? a bunch of times. Do you remember when Matt Lauer and Tom Cruise got into it during

Tom's bad phase? Maybe he's still in this bad phase. During Tom's bad phase about prescription drugs, do you remember that? Tom looks at Matt and go, you never saw that before. I vaguely come into mind, but not so I can speak to it.

That's because you was at Fuel City. It's like well, Tom Cruise goes, on the Today Show and I guess Brooks Shields, I believe it was, had written something that she was talking about Ritalin or

other antidepressants or Ritalins are not antidepressant but other drugs that had helped her with some of the stuff that she was going through. Tom Cruise is obviously a Scientologist and the Scientologists don't believe is my understanding that Scientologists don't subscribe to

psychiatry and certainly not to prescription drugs that might be anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medications or whatever. Matt Lauer asked him very directly about the fact that there were people in his family that had taken Ritalin and there were people in his family that had taken other drugs and those drugs have helped them. They had helped them.

And there was an exchange on there in which Tom Cruise looked fucking crazy, right, about these drugs. Matt, the clip, the clip, you don't even know what Ritalin is. But I've seen it happen before, and I think that we're losing a little bit of our goddamn backbone. If you write the book, go on there. The guy asked you, the guy used the term extremist. What he said was, if I didn't know that you had written this book, I would look at some of the things that in here.

This book could be very well in the backpack of an extremist. Tanahisi's ideas are not extremists at all. He might think that they're extremists because perhaps there's a personal interest. Right. So have the conversation about why these aren't extreme, why these are in line with how I view

human rights and the rights of Palestinians. Just fucking talk about it. I get it. It's just that morning TV is not political like that to where you show your personal interest. It's not. I wish it was. I think it would be more interesting.

But to your point about the Matt Lauer, Tom Cruise, yeah, he challenged him, but there was no personal interest connected to that with Matt Lauer. He said, no, there was. Matt Lauer says in the thing, there are people in my family. Oh, I thought he was saying people in Tom's family. Okay, sorry, sorry.

No, no, who have taken these drugs. Tom doesn't know who's in his family right now. Who've taken these drugs and been helped by them. Gotcha, got you. So I think that Matt Lauer was coming from a personal place. Well, he was. I thought, sorry, I thought that was a Tom thing. Anyways, it was interesting to watch.

And it was an interesting back and forth. But yeah. I just, you know. I like that. I agree to disagree. I know you do. You would debate all day. You probably walk around your apartment talking to walls and shit.

You probably are debating against walls. Bozeman. Poor Bozeman. Bozeman. I'll take Bozeman, like I'll take Bozeman for these long walks, like super long walks to tire Bozeman out. But then Bozeman comes back and he throws the, like Bozeman does his thing with the toy.

You've seen him do it. He's so cute. He goes and gets the toy. The toys in his mouth. And then he starts walking over with the toy. And then all of a sudden he runs. And then he comes up to end, he flops the toy on you.

And I'll have an argument. I was like, you think this is fair? We just walk for two hours. Do you think this is fair? Can Daddy play the game? What are you, why, why is our whole life organized around your entertainment? You know, I could see if I wasn't taking him for the walk. I could see if I wasn't taking him for the walk.

I'm taking them for the walk. I'm taking them to the park. Why is the whole life, when we go on a walk, does he walk right? No. do. He sniffs everything. He pisses on everything. He's having a fun time. He's communicating with the rest. Their whole world

revolves around us. I get it. I get it. Can a nigger play the game? Let's go. So you can go play the game. So you can go play the game. I'm going to go play the game right now. Can a nigger play the game? I'm going to go work out.

And I'm going to come back here. I'm going to play ball versus capcom. Can a nigger play the game, man? Anyway. All right, mailbag, Donnie, real quick. Mailback time. Time to read your letters. And then we'll reply to them. Oh, it's mailback time.

Write us with your queries. And we'll chime in. All right. Crafty Year wants to know. What are three books you think every black person should read? Go forward, Don. I mean, not Donnie. Bam.

The autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Taylor I think every black person should read that The Sword and the Shield We love the sword and the shield

By Penil Joseph The third one is the harder one What's the reparation book? I bought it and I haven't read it It's like in the list that you always talk about one. I even bought it after you said it because I'm like, I should read this book. From here to equality by Sandy Darity, but you know what?

I got to take out one of these books because you probably need to read some bell hooks. Three books. God damn, which Bell Hook's book would it be? You probably need to read some bell hooks. That's probably more important. Actually, you know what? that's probably more important than, yeah, it's more important than the autobiography

of Malcolm X by Alexander, because you don't need two books on Malcolm X. If you're going to read one, I think you would want to read King. Do the sword in the shield. Yeah. The sword and the shield. But, okay, something by bell hooks

to understand the dynamics and of interpersonal relationships and all that stuff inside the community. and then the autobiograph, then sort and the shield, and then from here to equality. You need some bells. You can have some bells in there.

All right. Second one is from handsome Gemini. What's the most embarrassing song you know all the lyrics too? And sing them. Slob on my knob. Give it to it. Give it to the people.

No, we ain't doing that. What? We're not doing it. Rachel, give it to the people. No, I'm not singing the whole song. Let's go ahead. Say yours. All right, stop.

Collaborate and listen. Ice is back with my brand new invention, something. Gras are holding me tightly, flowed like a heartbeat, daily and lightly. Will I never stop? Yo, I don't know. Turn out the lights and I'll glow. To the extreme, I rock a mic like a vandal. Light up the stage.

I rock a joint like a candle. Hey, he's maga. Okay, combination. Ask. Build the perfect sandwich. be specific a bunch of bread, cheese, meat, lettuce, type, etc. I don't fuck with sandwiches like that no more. The only time I eat a sandwich is if I start a Sopranos rewatch,

I always order a sandwich with a little gabagool, huh? I want a little bit of a fucking gabagaw. I come down here to Satriels for the Gabbagoon. Where's the fucking gabahoo? I want a Bill Pock. I want a fucking Villalpom. I take the Ville Pomer. I shove it right up your fucking ass.

You know their thinking caps are already off. So you don't have to say that part. Let's just get to it. Let's just get to it. You know. You know, tell them who you are. I'm Van Laker Jr. I'm Rachel and Lindsay.

Bye, guys. I'm sorry, guys. I'm not I'm sorry