The Breakfast Club - INTERVIEW: Byron Donalds Talks Trump Vs. Kamala, Jan. 6 Insurrection, Racism In America, Reparations + More

Episode Date: October 1, 2024

The Breakfast Club Sits Down With Congressman Byron Donalds To Discuss Trump Vs. Kamala, Jan. 6 Insurrection, Racism In America, Reparations. Listen For More! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello, my undeadly darlings. It's Teresa, your resident ghost host. And do I have a treat for you. Haunting is crawling out from the shadows, and it's going to be devilishly good. We've got chills, thrills, and stories that'll make you wish the lights stayed on. So join me, won't you?

Let's dive into the eerie unknown together. Sleep tight, if you can. Listen to Haunting on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese investigative journalist who, on October 16, 2017, was assassinated. Crooks everywhere unearths the plot to murder a one-woman WikiLeaks. She exposed the culture of crime and corruption that were turning

her beloved country into a mafia state. Listen to Crooks Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Gracias Come Again, a podcast by Honey German, where we get real and dive straight into todo lo actual y viral.

We're talking musica, los premios, el chisme, and all things trending in my cultura. I'm bringing you all the latest happening in our entertainment world and some fun and impactful interviews with your favorite Latin artists, comedians, actors, and influencers. Each week, we get deep and raw life stories, combos on the issues that matter to us, and it's all packed with gems, fun, straight up comedia, and that's a song that only Nuestra Gente can sprinkle. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Hey, everyone. I'm Madison Packer, a pro hockey veteran going on my 10th season in New York. And I'm Anya Packer, a former pro hockey player and now a full Madison Packer stan. Anya and I met through hockey

and now we're married and moms to two awesome toddlers, ages two and four. And we're excited about our new podcast, Moms Who Puck, which talks about everything from pro hockey to professional women's athletes to raising children and all the messiness in between. So listen to Moms Who Puck on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everyone. This is Courtney Thorne-Smith, Laura Layton, and Daphne Zuniga.

On July 8, 1992, apartment buildings with pools were never quite the same as Melrose Place was introduced to the world. We are going to be reliving every hookup, every scandal, and every single wig removal together. So listen to Still the Place on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Wake that ass up early in the morning. The Breakfast Club.

Morning, everybody. It's DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, Charlamagne Tha God. We are the Breakfast Club. Jess is on maternity leave, so Lauren LaRose is filling in. We also have our sister Angela Rye with us this morning. The host of the Native Land podcast. That's right.

And we got a special guest in the building. He's from Brooklyn. The brother, Byron Donalds. Also with the FAMU, too. HBCU. FAMU. That's right. 96, 99.

I didn't know you was from Brooklyn. Yeah, Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Can't you tell he's demeaning the way he speaks? I'm like, he don't sound like nothing but a New Yorker. Park Place, Troy and Schenectady, man. The way he walked in, I was like, he's a New Yorker. You're welcome, brother. So how'd you become a, well, I guess, because, you know,

New York is considered such a liberal place. How did you become a conservative? Oh, man. Politics came late for me in life. You started as a Democrat, right? Yeah, I was a registered Democrat. Didn't really care about politics. I think a lot of people like that in the country. They just register as whatever family or friends are, not really thinking about it. My career was finance. So I graduated with a degree of finance marketing from Florida State. I had too much fun

at FAMU, so I had to transfer. So I transferred to FSU, got my degree there, started in my career, worked in banking, worked in insurance. And then due to a financial collapse of 08, my company had international clients and they were saying, we need to get information for our clients so we can keep the investment going. So I started doing the research because I had worked in banking for five years. And when I did the research,

one of the last things I did was watch the House Financial Services Committee in Congress. First time I ever watched a congressional committee. And I watched it and really for me, it was that the members didn't know what they were talking about. I was like, who are these people?

You know, I was 29 at the time 29 30 and I'm thinking who are these guys they don't know what they're talking about a lot of stuff doesn't make sense and so that's really what started having me starting to think about politics and you know the journey kind of went from there but I got to tell y'all both my son he's sitting at home my son Mason he's a huge fan oh so he listens all the time so I got to give a shout to Mason. Salute to Mason. Thank you, Mason. Congressman, you just mentioned that you attended FAMU, but graduated from Florida State. We know that Donald Trump committed $255 million annually to HBCUs, while the Biden administration invested more than $16 billion since fiscal year 2021, the HBCU is averaging more than $4 billion annually.

They also challenged states through the Department of Education, that same department that Project 2025 wants to abolish, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to close a $12 billion gap between funding of land-grant institutions that are traditionally white institutions and historically black colleges. FAMU is, of course, one of those schools, as you know. The letter to Governor DeSantis said in the last 30 years alone, an additional over $1.9 billion would have been available for FAMU had this disparity not existed. What obligation does Florida have to properly fund FAMU to ensure Rattlers like yourself are properly educated

with the resources they deserve? Well, I mean, thank you for the question. I think that the disparities you talk about between some of the, you know, I guess probably more prolific universities in our state like UF and FSU versus FAMU and even from some of the younger universities like UWF, UNF, etc. It's something that when I was in the state legislature, we actually talked a lot about.

My last year in Tallahassee, there was a project for the student services building. It was about a $25 million project. Myself and members on the Democrat side of the aisle, we worked with the leadership in Tallahassee and then Governor DeSantis to make sure that FAMU got the money they needed to build that project out completely. And so that's something specifically I worked on. I think going forward, you know, that is something we got to definitely address. I totally agree with that. I think there's two issues, though, in higher education we got to also address. We do have a problem with the unaffordability of college. And a part of the reason why it is a problem is because so much money is poured into universities.

And we have told so many kids in the United States that the only way to be successful is to go to college. I'm from the generation. I don't want to talk about your age. I'm just going to leave that alone. I'm going to call you 32 years old and I'm going to walk away. I'm 44. I'll be 45 next month. 32 is way better. But anyway, you know, it's all right. It's all right. It's all right. But I think the point is that we have to start telling, you know, young people that there's multiple ways to be successful. When you have a situation coming from high school where all your successes can only be found with a

four year degree, what you also end up doing is you put upward pressure on the cost of college. But you're getting a lot of people coming out of college who have a degree that doesn't have economic value when there are multiple pathways for success in the United States. So funding that is on par through all universities is important, I do agree. But we also have to address the realities that's pushing every high school student into college with the false reality that a college degree is going to make you successful. It's not going to help them for success long term because they're going to be burdened with the cost of that degree going to the real world. And then realize, hold on, wait a minute. I can't get a job with the degree I have. Not all degrees are

the same. I believe personally an accounting degree, a finance degree like I have, an engineering degree, a law degree, that has more economic value overall in the economy than a marketing degree, which I also have, or a communications degree, or a psychology degree, or a philosophy degree, et cetera, if you can get into psychology and make that work for yourself. So I think there's multiple layers to college education that we need to address. Let me ask you a question, right? Yeah. So I want to go back a little bit.

So you were arrested before for marijuana. Yeah. You were arrested for bank fraud. Yeah. You're also of Caribbean descent. Yeah. Jamaican. Yeah.

When you hear Donald Trump talk about some of the other brothers that were arrested and taking out that full ad in the paper, or you hear them talking about Haitian people eating dogs and cats, you still stand by them and what they believe? And if you do, why? Well, a couple things. Because you were given a second chance. Like you should have been.

But, you know, why do you still stand by them if you do? Well, I think you also got to acknowledge that when he was president he also did the first step act which underdid which undid a lot of the issues with the 94 crime bill that a lot of politicians including the current president were for he undid that when he was president of the united states um i think second changes are important in society um i think everybody's afforded them. You know, what happened with the Central Park Five, I was probably sixth, seventh grade, eighth grade when that was going down in New York. I can't really speak

to that. It was all over the paper. It was everywhere. You couldn't escape it. We around the same age, so we seen it everywhere. You couldn't escape it. But what I would also add is that in 2000, Donald Trump was a member of the Reform Party. Most people don't talk about this. He was a member of the Reform Party. Most people don't talk about this. He was a member of the Reform Party. When David Duke joined the Reform Party, he left. He famously

said, I can't be associated with that party because they let David Duke come in. That man is a Klansman. When he bought Mar-a-Lago, he desegregated Mar-a-Lago. But at the time when he bought it, only white people were allowed in Mar-a-Lago. He desegregated that, allowed black people and Jewish people to be a part of Mar-a-Lago. So I think that when you start going down the road of the past, you have to take a man in his totality. I know the man today. And then when you couple that with the economic policies, the energy policies, the foreign policy, we have to acknowledge the reality that in the world today, the United States is in the midst of two conflicts, not directly, but indirectly. We just sent troops over into the Middle East

because of the growing conflict with our ally Israel having to essentially secure its sovereignty and its protection from Hezbollah and Hamas. Well, when Donald Trump was president, we didn't have to do any of that. So I acknowledge the stuff that you're talking about that happened in the past, but I think you have to take a man on the full record. And when he was president, he did release a lot of black people from prison. He did that. He did try to reform some of the criminal justice system. He did that as well. And so that work is just as important as something that he might have said back during the Central Park Five. I acknowledge the First Step Act, but when you said he undid the 94 Crime Bill, what do you mean?

What I mean is that the reforms in the First step back did undid in part some of the issues in the 94 crime bill not totally not totally it dealt with the sentencing of those people who were who either had their sentences reduced or were released and their convictions were in line with the 94 crime bill in a way criminal statutes were written during that during that under that piece of legislation and it starts thoughts on the whole... Hold on. What was that? Oh, what's up, Angela? Sorry, just on this same point, you talked about taking the man in his totality.

So one of those things in his totality is what happened on January 6th, which was your first term in Congress. Do you think he should be held accountable? Donald Trump should be held accountable for his role in the January 6th insurrection? Well, I mean, listen, first of all, I would tell you that everybody's responsible for their own actions. Just like I'm not going to blame friends or blame anybody else for the things I've done wrong in my life. I'm not going to put that on him. I'm not going to go. I'm not going to run around and blame Bernie Sanders for the

fact that Steve Solis was shot. Because if you go back and look at what Steve Solis, who's the current leader in the House of Representatives, who almost died at a congressional baseball practice. Hold on, I'm explaining. So I'm come back to January 6. Yeah, please do. And I will, of course, the shooter that almost killed Steve Solis, the Republican leader. He said vehemently that the reason why he went to the congressional baseball practice of Republicans to shoot it up was because he felt that Republicans were going to take away health care. And what he had heard in his rhetoric was that was dangerous and these Republicans had to be stopped. So I'm going to translate that to January 6th. The shooter is the one that perpetrated that crime.

I'm not going to put that on Bernie Sanders, who he cited for the rhetoric about around why he went to the congressional baseball practice. That's shooter that almost killed steve scalese let me translate um donald trump authorized 10 000 national guard troops i'm on the oversight committee he actually authorized 10 000 troops on january 4th two days before january 6th obviously so if you're going to say that you incited an insurrection then how are you also going to how are you also going to authorize 10 000 national guard troops to be at the capitol are you inciting how are you also going to authorize 10,000 National Guard troops to be at the Capitol? Are you inciting or are you not? Because the record is he authorized the troops. Nancy Pelosi and Mario Bowser, the mayor of D.C., did not want the troops at the Capitol.

Mario Bowser signed a letter on January 5th wanting the National Guard troops to be on traffic duty in D.C. Here's the funny thing about January 5th, 2021, is that nobody was in D.C. because D.C.'s rules around COVID-19 had the entire city shut down. The streets were empty during this time. So the National Guard that was authorized by Donald Trump were on traffic duty when there was no traffic, when they could have been at the Capitol. That's the history of January 6th. So your question is, well, did he incite a riot?

Well, I never seen somebody incite a riot. But Angela, I don't want to cut you off. I'm going to make one point. No, no, no, but I want to make sure that you're addressing the right point because I actually did not use that language. What I asked you was, should Donald Trump be held accountable for his role in January 6th? And so what I think is important is to compare this to Steve Scalise being shot after someone wanted health care versus the rhetoric, the very dangerous rhetoric that Donald Trump spouted on January 6th, where more than more than more than twelve hundred people have been charged in nearly all 50 states for their role. And 140 police officers were assaulted.

The same police officers that your party has said they want qualified immunity for. And Donald Trump, because we're looking at the totality of the person, has said they should have full immunity. Right. And when you think about the number of police officers who would get full immunity for their role in killing and being violent with people in our community like George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Philando Castile, Charlene Elias, Manny Ellis. Is that really the kind of rhetoric that you want to push, especially at the Breakfast Club? Well, hold on a second, Angela, because you brought in like four different topics now. Do you want to talk about Trump? No, I didn't. What I brought in was January 6th, responsibility, police accountability, and I used examples

of why they should be held accountable. But you all, you talked about how fantastic he was with the crime bill, which I object, but I'll let you finish your point. You also have not acknowledged the fact that this man was vehemently opposed to the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. And you all are supposed to be the party that protects law enforcement where over 150 police officers were assaulted that day on January 6th because of Donald Trump's rhetoric. So let me respond to a couple of things. Number one, the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. There were actually two bills that were moving through the United States Senate that year.

There was the George Floyd Policing Act that you discussed, and it was the bill that was written by Senator Tim Scott. They were both moving through the Senate, right? The Tim Scott bill is the one that could have got signed into law. It was essentially a mirror image of the George Floyd bill, except for qualified immunity. The difference between those two bills, and Angela, you just acknowledged it, the only difference between those two bills was qualified immunity. The issue with qualified immunity is very simple. If you remove qualified immunity from policing, you're going to have less officers on the street. Police officers make what? $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year. Law enforcement

has about 40 million or more encounters every single year with citizens. If you've removed qualified immunity, I'm telling you this right now because I've talked with law enforcement officers all across the country. Not the chiefs, the officers. They will not be working in these communities. I'm from Brooklyn, New York.

I'm from Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I may not have always loved having the police in my neighborhood. And that's just a thing from a kid. I may not have always loved it, but when I needed them, they were there. And a lot of our officers today, they're black, they're Hispanic, they're white. So removing qualified immunity only lowers the number of officers in communities. What we're seeing right now is a movement of policing from states where they're not really respecting law enforcement to states where they do, or there's not that moral support for law enforcement. I was in my district yesterday. I was talking with an officer who's from Philadelphia. He was a Philadelphia officer. He now is a Fort Myers officer. I asked him, I said, well, why'd you make the move? He goes, because up there, there was no support for me as an officer for what I love to do, which is serve my community. So I said, enough is enough. I'm going to move. He went to Florida. My sheriff in Florida, he's like, I have more applications coming from officers who are in states or in localities where they're not getting the moral support or whatever they need to continue to do their

job day in, day out. And so they're leaving. Well, who does that hurt? That hurts. That hurts. Who does that really hurt though, Charlemagne? Because if you don't have offices on the streets or offices, you know, in urban areas, who's really left in that lurch? Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out what, what does qualified immunity have to do with having less police officers? Because the economic incentive of qualified immunity means that your personal assets aren't gone after if something goes wrong. So it, you know, you're in business, you're in business,

you're in business. Do you get involved in a project or a deal that leaves you massively exposed financially? You may, depending on your passion for that project, but then you also sit back and think, now, wait a minute, if something goes wrong, I'm going to be held massively viable. Maybe I need to do something else. When we're saying nothing goes wrong, we're talking about people getting violently hurt or killed by people that you brushed over. When somebody clearly violates a constitutional right.

And when you violate a constitutional right, qualified immunity doesn't apply to you. And that's what I'm talking about. It does not. And Angela, don't do that. It does not. I thought that was the definition. No, it does not. I thought that was the definition. If you carry yourself outside of the confines of your training and the protocols of that department,

qualified immunity doesn't apply to you. That's not true. That is very true. That is very true. That is patently false. That is patently true, and we need to make sure we have that accurate. We cannot make that statement because you have a lot of officers out here who do their job with honor and dignity and respect for the people that they serve.

OK, listen, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil lawsuits when they perform their jobs unless they clearly violate a constitutional right. That's exactly what I'm saying. And what is a violation of that right is when you're outside the norms of their training and the protocols of that department or that agency. But here's the main thing, because we can actually go past qualified immunity because this is the place where you've refused to answer both on Donald Trump's accountability and on the law enforcement that you love so dearly. What we know is that he's seeking

full immunity, like the same immunity he now has because of the Supreme Court, because of the corruption of the Supreme Court. We have now gone beyond civil presidential immunity to criminal presidential immunity. He would like to give that same immunity to law enforcement. True or false? Well, let's let's expand that a couple or false. You can't ask a true or false, Angela, because you got to explain the details. No, see, this is the I don't want you to explain the details because when you explain the details, Why you don't want people to hear the details, Angela? The details are one of the things that matter. You've got to explain the details or then you're just talking. And then explain.

If you don't explain the details, then you're just talking. You don't want to say that because you know that it's not true. That is not true. You want a true or false statement. Congressman, I want to know if you've ever experienced racism in this country. Angela, I don't want to argue with you. I would like to know if you've ever experienced racism in this country, Congressman. Yeah, actually, I have.

Okay. Do you believe America is a racist country? No, I don't. Okay. I believe that that's true because you said that in an op-ed on Fox News. As a black conservative, I, like Senator Scott, agree in our two lives and the lives of many black men and women like us are living proof that America is indeed no longer a racist nation and by far the best place to reach your fullest potential. And so here's my question. You did, however, vote to support the Emmett Till

Anti-Lynching Act, along with every member of the House except for three Republicans. I appreciate your bipartisanship there. And what I do know as well, because America is in fact a racist country, was founded on such principles. Black men were lynched by the carceral state last week. I'm sure you've heard of Marcellus Williams by now in Missouri, who was convicted by a nearly all white jury. And Freddie Owens in South Carolina, who was executed despite his friend recanting testimony that Owens was not in fact there. This is the same state, by the way, that allowed for a firing squad as an execution option. Black people are about seven and a half

times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder in the United States than our white folks, and about 80% more likely to be innocent than others convicted of murder, according to a 2022 report by the National Registry of Exonerations. So please tell me how America is not a racist country. First thing I would say is that our past is a dark one. It really is. We can't walk away from that. We had whole laws that were subjugating black people in the south of this of this nation for decades after the Civil War. We can't walk away from that one. I believe that in America we have great people in this country and we have some people, quite frankly, that even I can't stand. But they're the vast, vast, vast minority of people in our country.

Most people just want to live in harmony and peace. That's what they really want. I think the important thing to acknowledge today is what's going to help Black people going forward. And what's going to help Black people moving forward is economic policy. It's actually wide open energy policy so we can be energy dominant. It's, yes, securing our southern border because we have a situation right now where, yeah, there are more than 15 million illegal aliens in the country. Where do they reside? Mostly in sanctuary cities like New York. Where are they at? Sanctuary states like Illinois, like California. What's happening in those cities? Hospital systems are overrun. Why are they overrun? Because you have people in the country illegally who don't have resources, so they're going into the emergency room. Well, what are they taking up? They're taking resources from poor people in our country, whether they're black, whether they're going into the emergency room. Well, what are they taking up? They're taking resources from poor people in our country, whether they're Black, whether they're Hispanic, whether they're

white. That's wrong. What about education? We have a situation where in too many inner cities, kids are not reading at grade level or they don't have math skills at grade level. How does that help them excel and achieve? I don't want to discount what Angela is saying. I don't. I acknowledge the issue of our nation, but we always are trying to strive to be the more perfect union. So in 2024, what are the economic policies? What are the national security policies? What are the border security policies that are going to make our country thrive? So whether you're black, Hispanic, or white, you could thrive.

And so I think it's important. Would you have to say that if it wasn't a racist country? Whether you're black, white, or Hispanic, you could thrive? No, no. Are we thriving? Are members in your state blackness in your state thriving? I would argue we're not really thriving right now. This inflation, which by the way was brought to us by Kamala Harris,

has really slowed down people from being able to excel. By Kamala? Yes. That's the vice president. Oh, Charlemagne. It's still the president charlamagne listen man when joe biden wanted to do his american rescue plan kamala harris was the tie-breaking vote in the united states senate she broke the tie that started this inflation that has hurt so many people in our country everybody listening to your show who's it's not true first of all you sure you want to go there You sure you want to go there? When you go outside, Congressman, you go outside in your district.

You sure you want to go there? Okay, let's go there. You got notes. You got notes, Angela, right? That's fine. I have notes, too. I'm going to give it to Charlamagne. The biggest note I have today is that on every question I've asked,

For every infrastructure project in your community, you should go out and thank Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Congress that voted for the American Rescue Plan. That's what should be happening. Larry Summers wrote an op-ed back in 2021. Larry Summers was the Treasury Secretary for Bill Clinton. He was an economic advisor to Barack Obama. said that the American rescue plan that Joe Biden wanted, that Kamala Harris was the tie-breaking vote in the United States Senate, would create a massive inflation that we have not seen in a generation. Well, guess what? Larry Summers was correct. You know who also was correct, Angela?

I was, because I was in the budget committee when they brought the bill. And I said in that committee, it's going to cause massive inflation. That's what happened. So the problem we have in our economy today is that prices have gone up massively. Wages adjusted for inflation is down. People's pocketbooks are hurting. But we have a presidential election in 40 days. And I'm going to ask

Envy this question. Envy, you do you're in the housing business as well I know because I listen to the show. No, I'm just asking them a question. Chill, Angela. And I listen to the show. I know you do a lot. No, I'm just asking them a question. Chill, Angela. So, you know, and I listen to the show. I know you do a lot of business in housing. Would you hire somebody that broke up stuff in one of your houses to fix

the other houses? No. Exactly. She broke the economy. I'm not going to do this this morning, Byron. Well, you're not going to do this, Angela, because I'm bringing facts. Hold on now. So now I'm bringing facts and you don't want to do it no more? Come on now, Angela. That's not right. I'm bringing facts. Hold on now. So now I'm bringing facts and you don't want to do it no more? Come on now, Angela.

That's not right. I'm bringing facts. I thought we were going to have a fact-based conversation. I want to have a fact-based conversation. You wanted to bring up votes. And so let's talk about votes. Go ahead. You have a 96% voting record with Heritage Action.

Angela, I'm not running for president, but we can talk about that. For those who are listening, um, heritage action is a part of the heritage foundation, which is the arc, the architect of project 2025, which we can talk about more later. You voted no on HR 8404, which provide federal recognition and protection to interracial couples. And that actually is a law that would benefit you, Congressman, given your marriage. You voted no, HR 6878, on requiring the Bureau of Prisons to provide incarcerated women with certain pregnancy-related care,

including sexually transmitted infectious testing, contraception, appropriate housing, bedding, clothing, access to hydration and restrooms, prenatal vitamins and other appropriate conditions of confinement, screening and care for high risk pregnancy, substance use and mental health support, including postpartum depression and prenatal education. The list goes on and it would limit the use of solitary confinement for pregnant women. You voted no twice on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would have restored the protections originally enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which I've heard you tout.

You also voted no on H.R. 3233, which established the bipartisan commission to investigate the terrorist and insurrectionist attack on January 6th at the Capitol. So you want to talk about voting? Sure. Please explain why you would vote so clearly against the interests of people who look just like you and I. So the first two bills you talk about,

I actually have to go back and see it because a lot of problems with some of these bills are all of the other things that get put into them, not just the things that you're talking about. Specific to the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the reason why I did not vote for that bill is because that bill would reinstitute what's called preclearance. Right now, hold on. Man, Angela, you don't let me talk. Here we go.

Here we go. Is that okay to say yes? Okay, here we go. So check this out. Preclearance right now under federal law, really by Supreme Court precedent, is no longer the law of the land. The reason why that is, is because there's not been over the last 30 years in elections, there's not been cases or there's not been any specific cases around why you need preclearance in the first place. Like was needed back in 1965, where you did have counties that were systematically discriminating against black people. So it could not prove, the plaintiffs could not prove at any point in the last 30 years

where you still need a preclearance. I live in a preclearance county. Collier County, Florida is a preclearance county. I've lived in Collier County for 23 years now, 23 years. There's never been an issue with me casting a vote in Collier County, Florida at any time over the last 23 years. And that's before I became an elected official. That's when I showed up down there working the cracker barrel, being a waiter and just figuring out how to make ends meet. And I could still cast my ballot. So every other protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is still law today. What my Democratic colleagues want is they want national preclearance so that if any jurisdiction, whether if they were a historically discriminatory jurisdiction or not,

if they made a change in their procedure, like reshifting a precinct, deciding to shrink or expand precincts, that would actually have to go to the civil rights division of the Justice Department for approval before they can make those changes. Now, why is that not important today? More people are voting by mail. So you have a situation where local election jurisdictions are shrinking precincts or resizing precincts or putting two precincts together because they don't have the volume of people going to cast ballots in those precincts.

You're now telling me that you have to now go to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to get approval to put two voting precincts together. That's why the John Lewis Act, and all due respect to John Lewis, great man, phenomenal career, but that's why that bill of putting preclearance in nationally, even in jurisdictions where there were no historical discrimination of black people, is not necessary legislation. Those are the details. And this is on the other side of 747,000 voters being purged in North Carolina. This is on the other side. This preclearance provision was struck in Shelby County versus Holder, which is a super and has had a path of being super discriminatory. Since that, 100 laws have been put in place to make voting rights more restrictive for people of color for the last 10 years.

So what you're saying is not actually. So actually, it's very factual. And I remember when Georgia changed their voting law, it was Joe Biden who was down in Georgia talking about how this was not even Jim Crow was whatever. I forget what he said, Jim Crow or whatever. Oh, you want to talk about Jim Crow? But this is what Joe Biden said. Hold on. Let's finish. Let me finish now. So this is what Joe Biden said back in 2022, I think is what he said. What happened with Georgia's new voting law that I would assume, I'm going to assume, Angela, I don't know for sure. I haven't seen what you said. As a kid, I really do remember having these dreams and visions, but you just don't know what is going to come for you. Alicia Keys opens up about conquering doubt, learning to trust herself and leaning into her

dreams. I think a lot of times we are built to doubt the possibilities for ourselves, for self-preservation and protection. It was literally that step by step. And so I discovered that that is how we get where we're going. This increment of small, determined moments. Alicia shares her wisdom on growth, gratitude, and the power of love. I forgive myself. It's okay. Like grace. Have grace with yourself.

You're trying your best. And you're going to figure out the rhythm of this thing. Alicia Keys, like you've never heard her before. Listen to On Purpose with Jay Shetty on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, y'all? This is Questlove, and I'm here to tell you about a new podcast I've been working on with the Story Pirates and John Glickman called Historical Records.

It's a family-friendly podcast. Yeah, you heard that right. A podcast for all ages. One you can listen to and enjoy with your kids starting on September 27th. I'm going to toss it over to the host of Historical Records, Nimany, to tell you all about it. Make sure you check it out. Hey, y'all. Nimany here.

I'm the host of a brand-new history podcast for kids and families called Historical Records. Historical Records brings history to life through hip hop. Each episode is about a different inspiring figure from history. Like this one about Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old girl in Alabama who refused to give up her seat on the city bus nine whole months before Rosa Parks did the same thing. Check it. Did you know, did you know, I wouldn't give up my seat. Nine months before Rosa, it was called a moment. Get the kids in your life excited about history by tuning in to Historical Records. Because in order to make history, you have to make some noise. Listen to Historical Records on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey guys, I'm Kate Max. You might know me from my popular online series, The Running Interview Show, where I run with celebrities, athletes, entrepreneurs, and more. After those runs, the conversations keep going. That's what my podcast, Post Run High, is all about. It's a chance to sit down with my guests and dive even deeper into their stories, their journeys, and the thoughts that arise once we've hit the pavement together. You know that rush of endorphins you feel after a great workout? Well, that's when the real magic happens. So if you love hearing real, inspiring stories from the people you know, follow, and admire, join me every week for Post Run High.

It's where we take the conversation beyond the run and get into the heart of it all. It's lighthearted, pretty crazy, and very fun. Listen to Post Run High on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everyone. This is Courtney Thorne-Smith, Laura Layton, and Daphne Zuniga. On July 8, 1992, apartment buildings with pools were never quite the same as Melrose Place was introduced to the world. It took drama and mayhem to an entirely new level. We are going to be reliving every hookup, every scandal, every backstab, blackmail and explosion,

and every single wig removal together. Secrets are revealed as we rewatch every moment with you. Special guests from back in the day will be dropping by. You know who they are. Sydney, Allison, and Joe are back together on Still the Place with a trip down memory lane and back to Melrose Place. So listen to Still the Place on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Hi, I'm Dani Shapiro, host of the hit podcast, Family Secrets. How would you feel if when you met your biological father for the first time, he didn't even say hello? And how would you feel if your doctor advised you to keep your life-altering medical procedure a secret from everyone? And what if your past itself was a secret and the time had suddenly come to share that past with your child? These are just a few of the powerful and profound questions

we'll be asking on our 11th season of Family Secrets. Some of you have been with us since season one and others are just tuning in. Whatever the case and wherever you are, thank you for being part of our Family Secrets family, where every week we explore the secrets that are kept from us, the secrets we keep from others, and the secrets we keep from ourselves. Listen to season 11 of Family Secrets on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I would assume you would say it's restrictive of Black people. In Georgia in 2022, there was record turnout of Black voters in the state of Georgia.

Record turnout. I'm assuming in 2024, because those are the trends in the state of Georgia, you're going to have record turnout of Black voters in 2024. So you had Joe Biden, who's a terrible terrible part of our past to try to move people emotionally in a negative response to what Georgia was doing. What we have seen in the outcome is that Georgia has actually had more voting inclusion of people of color and of black people. The new Georgia laws make voter intimidation easier. How? So, yeah, I think I think the most important thing here, Byron,

that I think we're overwhelmingly hear you say is as a black man in Florida, your argument is that it's easier to vote today than it was in 2013 when the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which again, I've heard you tout. Your argument is that states don't need preclearance, that counties don't need preclearance, that there's been no discriminatory impact since Shelby County versus Holder,

and that's why they should get rid of it. You brought up Jim Crow, and I'm glad you did, because you also have had something to say about Jim Crow. And I know that this, for whatever reason, has been unnecessarily tense. But I would love to invite you to clarify your remarks around Jim Crow so that you can at is actually a great thing in our country. And really comparing that to what was happening under that time period, the Jim Crow era, where you have marriage rates in a black family were very high. After that era with Lyndon Johnson's great society, in part, that is the reason for the decrease in the marriage rate in black families. And if you're going to have a strong, in order to have strong black families, obviously you need the father in the home. You're starting to see that again in

America. That's a great thing. Because when fathers are at home helping to raise their kids and nurture their kids, it puts their kids in a better position to be able to be successful going forward. Like my dad wasn't there when I grew up. It was really hard for my mom. You know, my mom still lives in Brooklyn. You know, she still lives here today. So I stand on her shoulders because she did so many things for me. She was mom, to quote her, she was mom and dad and she did it all. Are you married to a black woman?

No, no, no. But we also got to acknowledge that your kids standing on your shoulders is what propels them to be successful. You know, like my sons are in position in part because my success, my wife's success, but then also because you had two parents in there living together, growing together, thriving together. For black people that's listening, you know, because I did homework and I like to see sometimes

what black people feel about congressmen. And a lot of black people who I look at online and look at the comments don't feel like you're for them, whether it's you don't feel like this is a racist country you didn't let me answer the question though i'm sorry yeah the jim crow was the question oh oh i was just i was just talking about yeah i'm sorry go ahead angela i'm sorry i'm sorry i guess i guess for angela what i would what you should ask him is like for those who criticize those comments what did they get wrong? I think what they got wrong is they think that I was trying to say that Jim Crow was this great era for black people.

That's crazy. I would never say that. Never, ever say that. Matter of fact. That's what I took from it. Just because of the way the narrative was. That's what I took from it. And I think what happened, what the narrative happened was, in that room, it was all black people, a handful of reporters. The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote the story.

The Philadelphia Inquirer actually wrote it accurately what happened was is that when it was the biden campaign the biden campaign saw the story and they came out with this uh this tweet that made it seem like i was uh memorializing jim crow that's crazy so then hakeem jeffries the democratic leader he went to the floor gave a speech about it and. And before you know it, this thing is going worldwide. So then I find myself in this position like, wait, hold up. My comms guy is telling me, hey, they're trying to hit you on your comments in Philadelphia. I'm like, over what? I was talking about black families and the growth of black families going forward in America.

And that's a good thing. They said, no, they're saying you're memorializing Jim Crow. I was like, man, that's bull. I was going to curse on the airwaves. But you should. Why didn't I say fuck Jim Crow then? I mean, easy. Fuck Jim Crow.

Nobody wants that. But this is the problem, though. But what happens in politics is people will see a statement and then they want to emotionalize it. They want to sensationalize it to diminish your point of view and what you stand for and what you believe. Like, I believe in economic growth for everybody. I grew up, I was in the banking. I was banking background is my career. So when I hear Envy talk sometimes about access to capital, I know exactly what he's talking about because current financial regulatory policy on Capitol Hill has only made the large banks bigger. They've massively

decreased community banking in America. Well, if you're a young entrepreneur, young black entrepreneur, where are you going to go to get capital? From Citi? From Wells Fargo? From Chase? Or from the community bank down the street? Well, that community bank is in your community. We have less community banking today in the United States than we had in 2009. The only difference, financial regulatory policy. Now, if I want to bring politics into it, that policy was Dodd-Frank, which was written by congressional Democrats. They passed it unanimously by themselves. And then President Barack Obama signed it into law. The impacts of that regulatory policy has seen a decrease in community banking in the United States. That is the facts. And what that

also does, it helps to diminish access to capital for people who look like us who don't have the credit background. They don't have the family backgrounds. They don't have the historical backgrounds to get that capital and to rise and succeed. I want to change all that. That's what I believe. What you were saying, if you're saying black people don't like Myron Donald? I was just going to say, though, do you feel like you get it honest, though, with people not liking you because of all the other stuff sometimes that you told and you stand on? And I just want to read this quote to make sure this is what you said

cuz you're saying that they misquoted you or they took things so you said during Jim Crow more black people were not just conservative because black people are black people always have always been conservative minded but more black people voted conservatively is that correct yeah that's what I said right but like during that time the parties were a lot different though right uh not totally i think that that's one of the things they were very i was asking a question i know i'm trying to answer her question i want you to answer your question though like you know that

i'm a person that can read of course okay so during that time you just read it to me i know you can read yes thank you so that time, the parties were different. So when you say something like this and then people take what you say and put it in a context as to where the parties were at that time, you can explain to the people where the parties were during Jim Crow and what the difference is between now and then. You understand why people headlined it and got upset the way that they did. Correct? A couple of things.

Let's talk about the parties historically. Yes. Let's talk about it. The Republican Party was the party of emancipation it has always been the party that stood for the freedom for the freeing of slaves and for civil rights if you go back to the civil rights acts and it's not just the 64 act there were actually five other civil rights acts before 1964 massively overwhelmingly supported by the Republican Party. It was Democrats that were holding up those. When the 64 Act was going, before it went into law,

the filibuster in the United States Senate was led by Democrat senators of the United States Senate. All those Democratic senators that filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they remained Democrat senators. They didn't switch to become Republican senators.bert bird was a lawyer for the clan he was a democrat senator he was the dean of the democrat senate until the day he died he didn't change parties now i will acknowledge that richard nixon in response to um in response to just political moves of that era he started going into the south to trying to go find the conservative Democrat votes in the South. You call them Dixiecrats or whatever, to find conservative Democrat voters in the South in order to be able to, frankly, win the presidential election when

he was running during that era. He did do that. Where I'm highly critical of the Republican Party, my colleagues will tell you, is that the Republican Party in the 60s really didn't even try to get black votes. Didn't try to court black voters, didn't try to talk about black issues, didn't try to engage black people. And so as I come along, my politics are about policy, not about personalities. I believe in policies that help people thrive and succeed. What I tell people today in the Republican Party is you have black voters who are sitting back and saying, OK, now, wait a minute. I've heard these speeches before.

I've heard these talking points before. But nothing in my life is really changing. If you're trying to go court black voters, you actually have to go and engage black people. And so that's why I go everywhere. I just don't do Fox News. I think people kind of know that about me. I just don't do Fox News. I go everywhere. Why know that about me. I just don't do Fox News. I go everywhere. Why? Because I'm trying to share

my philosophies and my thoughts. I think political parties, over time, they do adjust. But what's really happening today is that people are moving underneath the feet of the political parties. I think that's a good thing for the country. So speaking of moving underneath the feet of the parties, you want to talk about policy.

And so I want to just play quickly what you said about reparations. Dr. King said at the tail end of the flight, he said, we're going to Washington to get our check. You understand? So now, what is your position on reparations? Thank you. Thank you. We can all be five minutes of answers. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't believe in reparations. I don't. Well, then you don't believe in the black community. So you don't believe in reparations? Oh, wow. Why did y'all play the rest of the clip, man? I was on fire during that one. No. Because, Byron, I think it's important for people to get your yays and nays,

just like you have to do on the House floor. You have to take an up or down vote on an issue. You took a down vote on this, and you haven't supported H.R. 40. So if you want to talk about the complexities of reparations, whether or not there should be a study in this country, you again have said that this country is not racist, and even though it has a dark past, it doesn't sound like you think it has a dark present. You have not sponsored that bill. You haven't co-sponsored that bill. Why not? Well, a couple of things. One, that's why I

wish you played the clip because I actually went to very, but I will. A couple of things is, all right. How many people in the United States today are actually descendants of slave owners? Forget descendants of slaves. Let's hold that to the side. Descendants of slave owners. You've had massive immigration into the United States over the last 150 years. So now you're going to say that people who immigrated to the United States who are not descendants of slave owners, were not descendants of that trade. Now they're going to be responsible for paying that out going forward. My mother's Jamaican. My father's Panamanian.

You have a lot of black people in this country who are not descendants of the American slave trade. So I already know off top there's a lot of black people in America who aren't going to be able to get that kind of benefit or get reparations. Well, most people who are for reparations, they feel like it should go to what they call foundational black Americans anyway. And I agree with that point. I agree with that point. But I'm just saying, I'm just laying out, these are the reasons for why I'm no. So while I'm sitting out- So you do support reparations for what Lenard just deemed

as quote foundational black Americans? No, no, no, I don't. But I want to explain that. I want to explain that. And so that's why you have a lot of people saying, okay, well then what are we going to do? And so my view is, is that what you do going forward is this is why you have to have wholesale changes in economic, medical policy, etc. So that the ability to access various parts of our economy and grow in our economy work for everybody, including people in our country who are, quote unquote, foundationally black. Now, let me translate to what's happened in California, the CEO state.

In California, there was a push to have the reparations. I'm actually from Washington State. Oh, I'm sorry, but I heard earlier you was in California, so that's why I'm saying it. No problem. So there was a bill in California for reparations. The California Assembly, which is massively Democrat, they didn't move that bill.

They could have moved that bill. When they were asked why they weren't moving that bill, they, they tucked tail and turn and turn around away. They didn't even have that. They didn't even have the guts to actually answer that question. So I'm here with y'all. I'll tell you why I'm a no,

but you have Democrats who will say therefore something, but when it comes time to actually do it, they're not there for you. They say they run away. They don't answer the question or, and to be blunt, like the current vice president, not answering a lot of questions. But she did say that she's for reparations.

After she said she wasn't. So which one is it? No, she never said she wasn't. That's never happened. That's a false narrative. Alright, that's fine. I'm going to let it go. She was here when she said it. I'm going to let you have it. I'm not going to challenge. I'm almost challenging. But I guess the question is, Congressman, you say that you're not for reparations.

Then you go on to say that there are a lot of elected officials. We know that racism is a bipartisan problem, right? So on that, do you know who was the father of affirmative action? Not as a good question, actually. I don't know the answer to that one. The answer is a Republican by the name of Dr. Arthur Fletcher, who worked. He brought up Richard Nixon earlier. He worked with Richard Nixon.

But I've noted that you are opposed to affirmative action. Again, another policy that would democratize access to all of the things that you've talked about today, including economic access for black people. So on that. What do you want black people to have? I want them to have everything. I want them to have everything. I want them to have access to everything that this nation can do when it's running right. How do I get the legislation that provides it? Because you have a situation now where the real question is, do you need affirmative action today? Not did you need affirmative action?

The answer to that is 100 percent. Yes, you absolutely needed it. The question is, in 2024, in 2028, in 2032, do you need that now? I would argue the thing you need more now is you got to have equality in terms of the level of academic attainment for young black kids. What a young black kid needs more now than anything today is to be able to read and write, read, agree at grade level, write at grade level, do math at grade level and frankly, and write. Read at grade level. Write at grade level. Do math at grade level. And frankly, and beyond. That's what they need today. You know, Byron, I don't disagree with you, but I just don't trust white supremacy that much. I feel like you need that type of legislation. I feel like you need those guardrails in place to make sure.

To protect. Yes, and to make sure those type of things happen. You coming out of Brooklyn, you don't, like, that doesn't register with you? Because you talked about your mom having to move you to a private school. So why now? because the kid that had to be moved out of that public school to a private school because you said that you were being trapped in a failing school you know that those schools a lot of them are still failing so why do you but you you think that if we get these things and we put these people in place that you are mentioning that all of that

will just change like i don't we know that it doesn't even work that fast even if people wanted to let me put it this way because you Charlamagne, you brought up the point about you think that you need those to guard against white supremacy. Well, I would argue, is it white supremacy to lock kids in failing schools, to not give them an option to go to find an academic environment that suits their interests? I would argue that it would be white supremacy to basically move millions of people into our country illegally on purpose and have them overwhelm our systems?

Here in New York City, the system is overwhelmed. Why do you think that's just a one-party problem? I feel like what's been happening at the border has been happening under so many different administrations. So has redlining has too. Redlining is not just a one-sided thing. Hold on, hold on, full stop. Not like this, not like this. Under Donald Trump, there were about 2.4 million people that came into the country illegally.

Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, that number is easily 10 million. That's what they know of. It's probably more like 15 million because it's people that came through the border. It's not even the same thing. Hold on, I'm going to make my point. I'm going to make my point.

We talked about financial regulatory policy, access to capital. I would argue it actually upholds the pillars of quote-unquote white supremacy to not have free-, access to capital. I would argue it actually upholds the pillars of quote-unquote white supremacy to not have free-flowing access to capital in the United States. So if you're a black person trying to find a way to raise money for your business, it is harder for you because you just don't even have as many avenues to go to. But the policies I advocate for, the policies that conservatives advocate for, is actually loosening up the ability for

kids to find a school of their choice, putting their parents at the head of the line, giving their parents the ability to make that purchasing decision. My mom made a purchase decision for me when it was very hard for her to put the resources together. She was barely making ends meet to do that, but she loved me, did that for me. I think if you're going to fund public education, fund the parents' ability to make that decision so they can decide where their kids go. That's some of the policy, I think, Charlemagne, that gives all families, especially black families, black mothers, black fathers, the ability to have their kids go further in America than anything before. And I don't think that, I mean, I'm not against that. I'm just also not against putting something in place that like make sure that when that

fails, because it's so many people and it will, it's already doing it right now. You trust white people more than we do. You know that. You know what I mean? It's just like, why not have something that comes in and says, okay, this kid from Brooklyn can get to go to that school because that mom didn't get that money. However, that kid is still smart and should be able to go to that school. It's who I don't trust is I don't trust bureaucrats and I don't trust politicians coming in here saying I'm going to invest blah, blah, blah billions and it's going to do this.

Then when you turn around later, there was no investment or the agencies or the administrators don't know what the hell they're doing to invest that money anyway. I'd rather give people those opportunities directly. I'd rather give people those resources directly. I'd rather make sure that the rules are clear and understood by everybody so people can make decisions. Nothing's perfect. I grant you that. We are all imperfect people. So the institutions we put up are going to be imperfect.

There's going to be failures along the way. But centralizing everything in Washington is an absolute goddamn disaster. What do you say to people that say that? I'm sorry, Lord. I didn't mean to do that. I'm sorry. The people that say that look like you, you don't support people that look like you

and that you're against. I mean, you said racism doesn't agree. It's not in this country. You talk about a lot of things. So a lot of people don't feel like that you're actually for the people that you look like. I'm for everybody, man, including the people I look like.

Not for everybody. I'm talking about the people that you look like. But I'm for them too. I'm 100 hundred percent, a hundred percent. I want people to thrive and succeed. Listen, I came up from nothing. To be blunt with you, I'm not even supposed to be here. We talked a little bit about my past, the things that I've done wrong, et cetera. The fact that I'm in this position now really is by the grace of God. That's why I'm sorry, God. I didn't mean to make that an earlier statement, but it's by the grace of God. So what I want is for people to thrive and succeed.

But what I also know, when you're talking about economics, when you're talking about public policy, the reality is you got to have it set up so people, everybody can thrive and succeed. In that vehicle, black people can thrive and succeed. How do you ensure that everyone succeeds, Congressman, is to ensure that there's legislation in place to hold entities and folks accountable for that success. So this is a place where I believe you agree. Angela, that's actually not true. That's actually not true. Then I just disagree with you, but this is a place where I think we do agree.

You cited the 64 Civil Rights Act. You talked about the 65 Voting Rights Act. We haven't talked about 68 Fair Rights Act. We talked about the 65 Voting Rights Act. We haven't talked about 68 Fair Housing Act. But I think that you would say that all of those things were helpful to black folks, right? Of course, 100% I would. That's legislation. Okay. So it is legislation. To Lenard's point, thank you, Lenard. And so then I think we should just touch briefly on Project 2025, which would erode most of that progress, right? So we've already noted your overwhelming voting record with the Heritage Foundation-based agenda. Project 2025 is a joint

proposal of the Heritage Foundation, and 25 of the 30 chapters written in Project 2025 were written by former Trump staffers. At least 140 people who worked for Donald Trump worked on Project 2025. And we know that it is treacherous for the Black community because it seeks to dismantle affirmative action, weaken anti-discrimination laws, reduce the enforcement powers of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which, by the way, Clarence Thomas used to work there, reduce Medicaid funding, eliminate programs aimed at addressing health disparities, includes measures to increase policing and incarceration, reduce funding for community-based alternatives, and eliminate initiatives aimed at addressing systemic racism in the justice system.

As a black man, how are you not concerned with the agenda that is proposed by Project 2025? To be blunt, I'm not concerned about it because nobody in the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself is even talking about it. To be blunt with you, Angela, none of us have even read it. So here's the problem, i get it none of us is you're saying that the 30 um the 25 of the 30 chapters that were written by his former staff and at least 140 people who worked for donald trump um haven't touched it or are you now distancing yourself from those people i'm happy to name names including stephen miller who i know you're very familiar with was a very senior official in the Trump administration. And I know that

we're clear about the fact that you guys are not naming it anymore because it's kind of become the boogeyman of this campaign, right? I think I might have to start saying Fuck Project 2025, to be honest with you. Really, like, distance yourself. That's what Donald Trump has done. He's distanced himself every single time. Every time he's asked about it, he goes, I have nothing to do with it.

I don't even know what... But Donald Trump isn't here today, Byron. I know. Hold on now. Let me You like it? I haven't read it. So this is the thing, Charlamagne. So I just named what it does. Angela, first of all, with all due respect, I like to read things for myself before. That's smart. You know what I'm saying?

And that's all due respect to you, but I want to read everything for myself before I make a judgment. I will tell you that like the Heritage Foundation, there are think tanks all through Washington. You have the Center for American Progress and all these other think tanks. They all do a bunch of policy prescriptions. They all do a bunch of programs and projects. I think the U.N. has something called Project 2030. That's a U.N. project that's going on right now.

What I do know is that Heritage Foundation or any other policy group is not setting policy for Donald Trump. Donald Trump set a policy for Donald Trump. He's in charge. So are you going to distance yourself from the Heritage Foundation as well, Byron? Are you saying that- Distance myself? Angela, I'm not a part of the Heritage Foundation. I'm a United States congressman. Right, but your voting record is 96% in alignment with what they've prescribed as policy recommendations for this country. 96%. If Kamala Harris's voting record is 96% in alignment with what they've prescribed as policy recommendations for this country. 96%. If Kamala Harris's voting record is 96% of the time aligned with the Center for American Progress, does that not mean she works at the Center for American Progress, Angela?

That's not the analogy that I made. That is exactly the analogy you're making. Come on now. I have a question. Sis, that's exactly the analogy you're making right now. What I said was, would you distance yourself from the Heritage Foundation? Would you distance yourself from the Project 2025? Would you condemn Project 2025, noting that it will have some horrible impacts on the people who look like you, the very folks who you said that you're working overtime to ensure they have access to this economy. This project would decimate that access and would decimate the Voting Rights Act of 65, which you're still not supporting free clearance for, 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act, all the things that you said that you want to decrease access to. You got to read it. Angela, I just said it.

I haven't read it. So there's not something I'm ascribing to or supporting in it. Nobody on the Trump campaign, to my knowledge, including President Trump, they have not read it. So there's not something I'm ascribing to or supporting in it. Nobody on the Trump campaign, to my knowledge, including President Trump, hasn't they have not read it. They're not ascribed to it. And let's be very clear, because you mentioned all the people that were in the Trump admin that work over there were doing some of that work. There were people in the Obama admin that work at think tanks. Now they're doing policy work. There were people at the Georgia. So this happens all the time. I think the issue Hold on, let me finish. Now. There are people who work in presidential administrations on Capitol Hill. They go to think tanks. They write up white papers all the time. That does not mean that what they write up actually becomes law. And so that's the point I'm making. to be talking so much about Project 2025, which Donald Trump isn't even a part of, has not subscribed to,

has not said, this is my plan. When you can go to his website and you see the policies he wants to support. Which is in lockstep with Project 2025. No, it is not, Angela. You need to stop now. Or you can read the Republican platform,

which Donald Trump actually changed at our convention this year, which is the policy sets of our party and what we are ascribing to and what we want to do as a party, I think that's where voters need to go. If there's no distinction between Project 2025, the Republican platform,

and Donald Trump's campaign platform, how can you distance yourself from Project 2025? I got a different question. Because Trump has disavowed Project 2025. I'm just seeking an answer. But he did praise the Heritage foundation a lot for years. Of course.

I mean, yeah, we all have praised the heritage foundation, but that doesn't mean we agree with that work that heritage did. But here's my question. What does Kamala Harris actually want to do? Because let's talk about her economic plans that she's come out. I'm gonna go through a couple of them.

She says she wants to tax unrealized gains. I don't know if she really wants to do that anymore. Cause Mark Cuban, who's supporting her went on CNBC and said that it would destroy the stock market. He's not going to answer Project 2025. I was looking and I'm checking to see where Kamala Harris is in the conversation. Because we have a presidential election in 38 days now, which is the thing that's coming forward.

So we need to have this conversation. She wants to do price gouging or go after price gouging. Well, how are you going to do that? Because when you do that, what you're actually going to do is put downward pressure on prices in our country. When you do that artificially, what you create is scarcity of product. So what that means is you're going to have poor people in our country who are going to have less access to goods and services. Because rich people are going to get their goods and services no matter what. They have the access points. They're going to get them. So you're going to have less product to goods and services. Because rich people are going to get their goods and services no matter what. They have the access points.

They're going to get them. So you're going to have less product for poor people in our country. She had a thing about she wants to do $25,000 for a new home, for first-time homebuyers. I think that's great. Well, no, it's not. Because what's going to happen is it's going to increase the cost of housing $25,000. Because if you know every first-time homebuyer has $25,000 from the government

in their back pocket, you as the seller, you're going to be like, oh, wait a minute. Every seller writ large is going to be like, you know what? Well, then I can increase my price to $25,000. As a kid, I really do remember having these dreams and visions, but you just don't know what is going to come for you. Alicia Keys opens up about conquering doubt, learning to trust herself, and leaning into her dreams. I think a lot of times we are built to doubt the possibilities for ourselves. For self-preservation and protection, it was literally that step by step. And so I discovered that that is how we get where we're going. This increment of small, determined moments.

Alicia shares her wisdom on growth, gratitude, and the power of love. I forgive myself. It's okay. Like grace. Have grace with yourself. You're trying your best. And you're going to figure out the rhythm of this thing. Alicia Keys, like you've never heard her before.

Listen to On Purpose with Jay Shetty on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So y'all, this is Questlove, and I'm here to tell you about a new podcast I've been working on with the Story Pirates and John Glickman called Historical Records. It's a family-friendly podcast. Yeah, you heard that right. A podcast for all ages. One you can listen to and enjoy with your kids starting on September 27th. I'm going to toss it over to the host of Historical Records, Nimany, to tell you all about it. Make sure you check it out. Hey y'all, Nimany here. I'm the host of a brand new history podcast for kids and families

called Historical Records. Historical Records brings history to life through hip-hop. Each episode is about a different inspiring figure from history. Like this one about Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old girl in Alabama who refused to give up her seat on the city bus nine whole months before Rosa Parks did the same thing. Check it. Get the kids in your life excited about history by tuning in to Historical Records. Because in order to make history, you have to make some noise. Listen to Historical Records on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, everyone. This is Courtney Thorne-Smith, Laura Layton, and Daphne Zuniga. On July 8th, 1992, apartment buildings with pools were never quite the same as Melrose Place was introduced to the world. It took drama and mayhem to an entirely new level. We are going to be reliving every hookup, every scandal, every backstab, blackmail and explosion, and every single wig removal together. Secrets are revealed as we rewatch every moment with you. Special guests from back in the day will be dropping by. You know who they are. Sydney,

Allison, and Joe are back together on Still the Place with a trip down memory lane and back to Melrose Place. So listen to Still the Place on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Hey guys, I'm Kate Max. You might know me from my popular online series, The Running Interview Show, where I run with celebrities, athletes, entrepreneurs, and more. After those runs, the conversations keep going. That's what my podcast, Post Run High, is all about. It's a chance to sit down with my guests and dive even deeper into their stories, their journeys, and the thoughts that arise once we've hit the pavement together.

You know that rush of endorphins you feel after a great workout? Well, that's when the real magic happens. So if you love hearing real, inspiring stories from the people you know, follow, and admire, join me every week for Post Run High. It's where we take the conversation beyond the run and get into the heart of it all. It's lighthearted, pretty crazy, and very fun. Listen to Post Run High on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Dani Shapiro, host of the hit podcast, Family Secrets. How would you feel if when you met your biological father for the first time, he didn't even say hello? And how

would you feel if your doctor advised you to keep your life-altering medical procedure a secret from everyone? And what if your past itself was a secret and the time had suddenly come to share that past with your child? These are just a few of the powerful and profound questions we'll be asking on our 11th season of Family Secrets. Some of you have been with us since season one and others are just tuning in. Whatever the case, and wherever you are, thank you for being part of our Family Secrets family, where every week we explore the secrets that are kept from us, the secrets we keep from others, and the secrets we keep from ourselves. Listen to season 11 of Family Secrets on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's going to have an upward trajectory shot on housing costs in our country,

which is the thing we don't need in America. Those are three economic policies I know are not going to work. That sounds like a hypothetical. Yeah, well, I would increase that. If somebody gets $25,000 from the government to purchase their phone. Let's say there's 3 million first-time homebuyers in the United States of America. They all have an additional $25,000 of purchasing power. You do have a situation where every seller in the country is going to realize, oh, shoot, is this a first-time homebuyer? Well, I know you have an additional 25.

When you provide that type of stimulus into an economy, what you end up doing is you increase prices in whatever that economy is. She says she wants to build 3 million new homes. How are you going to do that? Let me explain why. Environmental policy, both at the federal and state level, makes it much harder to build housing. Whether you believe in climate change or not, weatherizing, energy efficiency, all of those regulations has made it more expensive to build housing. If the federal government says, okay, now we're going to go for 3 million new homes, okay, Well, how's that going to work? Are you going to change the regulatory burden for building those new homes? Are you not going to have a disjointed regulatory burden between the federal house and one built in a private sector? That's not smart. You can't do that. So if you're

not going to change the regulation, you're just going to pump more money into the system. What you're going to do is you're going to push up the cost for the materials to build housing, which is going to make it more expensive, not less expensive. And so if you take advantage of the home that Kamala built for you, great for you, but for the entire economy writ large, it's not going to be good because the cost of housing is going to go up on everybody. That doesn't help. So that's it. You disagree with the stimulus checks too then? At the time when stimulus checks were going through under covet 19 the only reason i agreed with them is because the entire economy was shut down so when you shut down the entire economy and nobody has an ability to go and earn money then yeah you got to step in the gap and do that the only difference was the

last one we did which is that's the article i gave you on the American Rescue Plan. Even Larry Summers said the amount of stimulus they were going to put in was five times the amount of decreased economic input we were having in the country because of the COVID-19 medical protocols that locked down communities and locked down states. So that's what created your inflation, which has crippled purchasing power for everybody in our country. Man, go fix a car. Forget we talk about food so much or we talk about housing so much. Of course, that's important. Go fix your car. I just got the bill from my son's car.

That thing got me and I can and I can make it work. What about people who aren't in my position or frankly, who were in my position when I was 30 and not 45? Because 30 year old me couldn't live under this price regime that has been brought to us by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. Hold on, Angel, we're going to wrap in a second, but I want to ask you a couple questions about the party, right? Really one question.

Why do people think the economy does better under Republicans when the data shows otherwise? And this is a question I've been asking the different people that have economy backgrounds. Why do people think the economy does better under Republicans? But the data shows since World War II, the economy has performed better under Democratic presidents. Well, I would actually make one adjustment to that statement. I think the economy typically performs better when you have split government.

Because what ends up happening is you don't have one party just pushing all economic policy. It kind of stagnates out economic policy. And what businesses want more than anything is consistency and policy. Like, you know, a business owner is, you know, like any athlete. As long as you're not changing the landscape of the field, once I know what the rules are, I can go operate and be effective. So what do you think? You think Democratic president and Republican and let everything out?

What do you think? What do you think? You probably hate to see Kamala's support to business owners. But I'm saying, when you say split out? What do you think? You probably hate to see Kamala's support to business owners. When you say split government, what do you mean? I'm saying historically, our economy has performed best under split government. I'm not saying that. Typically, it's

Republican president and Democrats in the House. That shows it does better under Democratic president. No, no, no. What I'm saying is that historically over time is when you have split government. But I think the reason why, to your original point, about why do people feel that way is because when Donald Trump was president versus when Joe Biden was president, that's what people are looking at right now,

Donald Trump wages adjusted for inflation were up. Costs were stabilized. And so those two inputs in an economy make you feel like you have more money in your pocket. When Donald Trump came into office, under then President Obama, our economy was somewhat stagnant. We growth moved from one, one and a half to three, three and a half. That's a real boost to people and they see it and they remember it. Now you have the Biden-Harris economy. Well, we've stagnated again and inflation is massively up. So how people feel is, wait a minute, I just went to the grocery store. I bought bread. I bought cookies. I brought milk. It's way more expensive. I got a raise, but it doesn't feel like I'm still getting ahead. My rent's more expensive. Fixing my car is more expensive. And all those things are obviously ascribed to the current administration because the inflation started really in September 2021 after the American Rescue Plan, that was Joe Biden's plan, came into law. So people are feeling that, Charlamagne. And I think that's why, you know, in the backdrop of politics, I talked a little bit about people moving under the feet of the parties.

One of the reasons why black men in particular are starting to look at Donald Trump, because they're like, you know what? At least my pockets were good when he was president. The other stuff, that's other stuff. I was making more money and my money was going further. But I think they feel like that because of the stimulus checks in the pvp loans but you gotta you gotta look at what had to happen in order for that money to go out like you had to have a freaking pandemic with millions of people die but no no that's not gonna happen but i hope not oh no i don't want it to happen either but i want to be clear on this wages adjusted for

inflation before the covet 19 pandemic was at the highest level for black Americans, Hispanic Americans, white Americans in the history of the country. The wage gap, which gets talked about so much in our politics, the wage gap was actually decreasing under Donald Trump's presidency. And then the COVID-19 pandemic hit and then COVID was just such a disaster for everybody. And now we have a situation where we have massive inflation in the country. Inflation today is like a little over 3% year over year. But when you take in the totality of these price

increases, prices are up well over 20% in our country the last four years. That's real life stuff everybody's dealing with. And I think that's why Donald Trump is being more successful in some parts of the electorate than he has in the past.

I got one real quick. Just J.D. Vance, where are you at? How do you feel about where he is now and where he's taking the party to? Because you was in the running for VP at one point. I know you said it on Twitter that day when they announced it wasn't you. No, no, no, no, no. It was good. I told President Trump, I was like, man, whatever you do

is whatever you do. That was the conversation. But J.D., I think J.D.'s hit his stride. Actually, I was like, man, whatever you do is whatever you do. That was the conversation. But J.D., I think J.D.'s hit his stride. Actually, I'm in New York because I'm going to be at the debate tomorrow night. And I think it's going to be a really important debate for the country to start hearing about all these different policies in detail. The way Angela and I are going back through policy. I think that's important. I think J.D.'s doing good.

Again, victory is what matters. He's not doing good. He's actually terrible he's actually he's very well done come on Sharla he's actually done so much more damage to that ticket

he should have made Nikki Haley the VP you heard Cat Lady and said yo he's in his stride he's terrible the Cat Lady thing I mean I don't agree

with that man I don't agree I don't agree with that the Haitian cat that came from him too cats and dogs yeah I don't agree with that either

I just don't so what stride do you mean? What do you agree with? Because what J.D. is doing is that he's basically doing the thing that Tim Walls and Kamala Harris are not doing. He's engaging media every single day. He's engaging it all over the country. And especially in this 24-hour news cycle,

we have so many outlets for information like this one here, which, by the way, man, thank you all for letting me come here. I really appreciate it. But when you have all these outlets, it's important to fill that gap. And if we're going to – I agree with that. But I don't want you on the microphone just saying anything, making me look bad.

No, no, no. You can make all the appearances you want, but if you're just making us look bad every time you talk, it's like staying down. J.D. doing good, man. Seriously. I do want to ask you about this financial against her question. You are getting a lot of smoke right now from the Office of Congressional Ethics

because it says you failed to properly disclose two years' worth of you and your wife's stock trades. Why didn't you disclose that information? Actually, great question. I'm glad you brought this up. So a couple things. One, we actually self-reported to the Ethics Committee on this. So we self-reported saying, hey, we didn't file this paperwork. And I got to take that. That was

me. I didn't file. I didn't file it like I should have. We went back and we're making those adjustments. That report is actually going to get refiled. I used to be in investments. That was my last stop in my career. So I'm securities licensed also. The periodic transaction reports that this report speaks to, my firm does all the trading on my behalf. I actually gave them trading authority for my accounts. So I do not trade stocks. I do not initiate trades. My firm makes them on my behalf. So my team is working with my firm. We have all that data. We're actually going to make an amendment to that filing. We're going to push it forward. And I don't want to speak any more of that because that's what ethics, but that's where we are right

now. I got to take ownership of that, but we're going to fix it. We're going to move forward. Because in the past you spoke out in support of banning lawmakers from trading stocks. I don't think lawmakers should make trades directly. And the way this works is, you know, as a financial advisor, Charlemagne, if you are my client, you can either initiate the trade by calling me or I can call you and say, Charlemagne, I think you should do this. This is a good move. As long as the investment advisor is bringing the information and pressing the trade, I think there's nothing wrong with that. What should never be allowed is the member of Congress, in this example example calling the investment advisor and saying, hey, trade this, trade that.

I think that is totally wrong and out of bounds. We have information that the public doesn't have. I do not initiate trades. What's the difference though in who initiates it? Because if your advisor calls you and says, I think you should do this, are you not feeding back opinion and saying, well, based on what I know, blah, blah, blah,

I don't think that's a good idea. Or maybe we should do more. It's the same thing. It's just who starts the conversation. Lauren's right. Because you did have stock in companies that you oversaw with the health committee. And my company makes those trades. And if you actually go into the notes of my firm, my management team that runs my stock portfolio, there's no record of us even having that conversation. So as an investment advisor, every time I was on the phone with the client, I had to take a note of that conversation. And so the reason why I have less concern about the advisor making the call to a client, specifically a member of Congress,

is because that's the advisor bringing information to that member of Congress, not the other way around. If they're up to me just being pure about it, the member of Congress shouldn't even be on the call at all. That's how I run my business. I'm not on the phone with my firm. They make their trades regardless of whatever I say, regardless of whatever I think, because the trades that are made are actually in lockstep with every other client we have, or I say they have, when I was with the firm, it was we.

They have under that product line. And I think that's how it should be. Why even, though, get into stock at all? You know what I mean? If that could be a controversy, like into the trading, why even do that at all? Why even catch that water? No, because at the end of the day, you're still an American. I mean, let me could be a controversy, like into the trading, like why even do that at all? Why even catch that water? No, because at the end of the day, you're still an American.

I mean, let me put it this way. Should I have to sell all my assets to be a member of Congress? I don't think that's right either. I just don't think that's right. You're an American still, even though you're a member of Congress. I think where all the angst comes in is that you have had some members. The most notable is Nancy Pelosi. But there's other members, and it's been on both sides of the aisle,

so I'm not just going to throw Nancy out there. But Nancy's the most egregious, where her husband is making all the trades. Like, you got whole people on Twitter, on X, excuse me, who are literally following Paul Pelosi's trades. That's not right. Angela, you said you had a

last question? Yes. Will you vote to certify the 2024 election results, even if they don't go in your favor? Yeah. I mean, the biggest thing and this is a great question. I'm glad you and or I don't know if we're in there, but it's cool. I'm glad that you asked that one. The biggest thing I want to see is that states and local localities follow election procedure. As long as they do that, I'll certify. No problem. Yeah. And, you know, there are a number of states where that's in contest right now. In fact, in Georgia, where you talked about things being more democratized, they are actually making it tougher to certify election results on the state level.

How? Honestly, Angela, I'm asking your expertise. I don't know how. Yeah, there's a whole commission that just voted to make it more difficult. They even talked about counting ballots by hand, which would delay the certifying of the election results. I mean, look, if they count them by hand to ensure results, you know, I think that's overall, I think that's a good thing. I think the other thing is we do need some states who are going to improve the way they go through their ballot procedure.

Like, you know, I'm going to bring up California again. But in California... Or maybe Florida. No, because in Florida, you know our results'm going to bring up California again, but in California, Florida, no, because in Florida, you know our results by 11 PM that night in California, it takes a number of irregularities in voting processes. 2000 baby. In California, you have a situation where it takes them three, four days to say what the results are of an election. That's crazy.

That's like watching a football game. That's like watching the Ravens bills game last night and not knowing what the score was until two days later on's crazy. That's like watching a football game. That's like watching the Ravens-Bills game last night and not knowing what the score was until two days later on SportsCenter. That don't make any sense. We could do that. Yeah. And the reason why I'm asking this question is because you voted to overturn the 2020 election results right in the heart of the insurrection, the same day of the insurrection, in fact. Yeah, I did. And that was the reason why is because I believe the two states were Arizona and Pennsylvania, I think, were that day. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled that they were going to allow ballots three days after the polls close.

Well, that's actually in violation of state law, because state law in Pennsylvania code says that one only time that ballots are allowed to actually be accepted is when the polls close. Anything after that, this is Pennsylvania law, anything after that, you're not allowed to accept those ballots. The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania changed that. They only changed that because of COVID-19. I disagreed with that because of what I felt that that did is it expanded the voting pot to other issues that should not have been allowed. So that's why. Right. And you do know a number of issues that have been raised by the Republican Party are around voter fraud. You know how many voter fraud cases there were in Pennsylvania in 2020, around the 2020 election? No, all I'm talking to is about the fact that they did not follow election procedure in the state of Pennsylvania. And so by not following election procedure, that's a problem. Okay, so even in the congressional record, some of what was raised is voter fraud cases. So your issue is not voter fraud? Listen, I have an issue whether it's fraud or not following the rules to the game. And so I think both are just as egregious.

If you change the rules upon election procedure in the fourth quarter of an election, that's not good for either side competing in that election. And let me expand on this. You know, I played basketball growing up, right? If you know, if if if a ref decided that, you know, for the first three quarters, we you know, we don't call traveling ticky tack. And in the fourth quarter, we just going to let it go. That's not right for the fluidity of that game. You got to be consistent. And so I look at it the same way I look at elections. Just be consistent. Whatever the rules are, the rules are. It's the responsibility of citizens and local officials to fall under that and make sure in the issue of voting that everybody

can make sure their vote is counted. Speaking of fluidity, do you believe Mark Robinson should step down? 30 seconds or less? Man, I'm going to leave that in Mark's hands. No, no, no. You got to answer the question. No, seriously. The reason why is because

I've seen so many situations where the early reporting looks terrible. Then you find out after the fact that it's either a shade of what's being reported or not true at all. So anybody making the decision to run, that's in the hands of that man and his team and his family. And I'm serious about that. Let me tell you something.

I'm serious about that. That's the one thing I do. One of the things I respect about Republicans is that. They me tell you something. I'm serious about that. One of the things I respect about Republicans is that they ride with each other. They ride with each other. That's how we feel about Democrats, man. No, they don't.

That's because Eric came at them. I don't know what happened in the Eric situation. They were riding with Joe Biden until he realized that, you know, he wasn't with us. And the second they realized he wasn't with us, let's be real about this. Joe Biden was the nominee. If that debate in Atlanta two weeks ago didn't happen or two months ago didn't happen, we'd be talking about Donald Trump, Joe Biden.

The only reason that they got rid of Joe Biden is because his poll numbers were cratering and not just for him, for Senate Democrat Republican, for Senate Democrats and for House Democrats. And when they looked at their numbers dropping, then that's when they were like, man, show the old dude the door. We got to move on. Well, I'm glad they made the right decision. And I wish somebody in the Republican Party would do the same

because y'all can do much better than Donald J. Trump. Nah, we going to be good, man. We going to make America great again. Don't worry about it. All right. Oh, Lord. It's a white year.

It's Congressman Byron Donalds. We appreciate you for joining us, bro. Man, appreciate y'all, man. Back to Jim Crow. Oh, come on. Stop. See, there's Congress. It's a white year. It's Congressman Byron Donalds. We appreciate you for joining us, bro. Man, appreciate y'all, man. Back to Jim Crow. Oh, come on. Stop. See, there you go. Wake that ass up.

In the morning. The Breakfast Club. Hello, my undeadly darlings. It's Teresa, your resident ghost host. And do I have a treat for you. Haunting is crawling out from the shadows, and it's going to be devilishly good. We've got chills, thrills, and stories that'll make you wish the lights stayed on. So join me, won't you?

Let's dive into the eerie unknown together. Sleep tight, if you can. Listen to Haunting on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese investigative journalist who on October 16th, 2017, was assassinated. Crooks everywhere unearthed the plot to murder a one-woman WikiLeaks. She exposed the culture of crime and corruption

that were turning her beloved country into a mafia state. Listen to Crooks everywhere on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, I'm Kate Max. You might know me from my popular online series the running interview show where i run with celebrities athletes entrepreneurs and more after those runs the conversations keep going that's what my podcast post run high is all about it's a chance to sit down with my guests and dive even deeper into their stories, their journeys, and the thoughts that arise once we've hit the pavement together. Listen to Post Run High on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, everyone. This is Courtney Thorne-Smith, Laura Layton, and Daphne Zuniga. On July 8, 1992, apartment buildings with pools were never quite the same as Melrose Place was introduced to the world. We are going to be reliving every hookup, every scandal, and every single wig removal together. So listen to Still the Place on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. through hockey. And now we're married and moms to two awesome toddlers, ages two and four. And we're excited about our new podcast, Moms Who Puck, which talks about everything from pro hockey to professional women's athletes to raising children and all the messiness in between. So listen to Moms Who Puck on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.