The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.20 Trump’s Taylor Swift Problem is Pathetic & Bigger Than We Knew, Kristi Noem Goes Full Clown Mode, &

Episode Date: May 20, 2025

Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/phil to get 50% off your first order of Sundays for Dogs! PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at https://PDSDebt.com/defranco    https://BeautifulBastard.com Get 50% OFF a Mystery shirt while supplies last! Subscribe for New shows every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday @ 6pm ET/3pm PT & watch more here:  https://youtu.be/vyMvYwMnQPw?si=UQk0zS-hBVm_UY8w&list=PLHcsGizlfLMWpSg7i0b9wnUyEZWI-25N3&index=1  – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Sec. Kristi Noem Fails to Define Habeas Corpus 04:20 - Nebraska Bans SNAP Recipients from Buying Soda, Energy Drinks 07:30 - Trump Claims Harris Campaign Illegally Paid for Celebrity Endorsements 11:34 - Sponsored by Sundays 12:39 - Trump Admin. to Pay $5M to Settle Lawsuit from Ashley Babbitt’s Family  16:43 - Russia Launches Drone Strike in Ukraine Following Trump Call 20:40 - Sponsored by PDS Debt 21:49 - New Jersey Rep. Charged with Assaulting ICE Agents 24:38 - CA Dry Cleaner Offers Free Services to Unemployed People Going to Interviews ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino  ———————————— For more Philip DeFranco: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V Twitter:   https://x.com/PhillyD Instagram:   https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco Newsletter: https://www.dailydip.co TikTok:   https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco?lang=en ———————————— #DeFranco #TaylorSwift #KristiNoem ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Gro delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees,

exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. This is a news show. So, Kristi Noem, our Homeland Security Secretary, does not know what habeas corpus means. Which, hey, you are not the Homeland Security Secretary. If you don't know, a quick refresher, it's the principle that people should be able to challenge their detention in court and that the government would have to prove that a person's detention is legally justified. But it essentially exists to prevent illegal imprisonment, something that the BBC has called a cornerstone of the legal system in the UK, US, and other democratic countries around the world for centuries. The phrase actually translates to, you should have the body, essentially saying that

a person must be able to appear before a judge so the judge can determine if that person was lawfully detained. And hey, well, probably not every Joe Blow in the country can define habeas corpus off the top of their head. The Department of Homeland Security literally oversees thousands of arrests and detentions in the country. So the hope would be that the person in charge of that department might know what it means. But instead, what we saw today was New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan asking DHS Secretary Noem about habeas corpus. And we got this interaction. This is not AI.

I want it to be AI. This is real life. So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus? Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to- No, let me stop you ma'am. Habeas corpus, excuse me, that's incorrect. President Lincoln used it.

Excuse me. Like I want to find out that maybe Noem took a fall to the head before the hearing. Maybe the Botox needle went a little too deep. Hit brain. But going back to the video, you had Senator Hassan then correcting her and explaining what it meant and continuing. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides, that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?

I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not. It has never been done. Let us be clear, though, that this president— It has never been done without approval of Congress. Even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress. And as far as why Hassan asked Noam about habeas corpus, well, it's because White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller

recently said that the Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus. The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So to say that's an option we're actively looking at. And Trump has repeatedly insisted that the country is facing an invasion that requires undocumented immigrants to be deported. Notably, that potential plan has sparked a ton

of backlash and criticism. As far as what the constitution actually says about habeas corpus, it says it, quote, "'Shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion "'or invasion, the public safety may require it. However, the legal consensus is generally that Congress is the one with the power to suspend it. And the courts have not been universally sold on the idea that the US is actually under an invasion right now. You've got tons of legal scholars slamming Miller's claim that the Trump administration has the power to do this.

With just one example being a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University writing on Substack that Miller's argument is factually and legally nuts, and him also calling the remarks, some of the most remarkable and remarkably scary comments about federal courts that I think we've ever heard from a senior White House official. And adding, Miller's comments strike me as a rather serious ratcheting up

of the anti-court rhetoric coming out of this administration and an ill-conceived one at that. And so connected to that, at the hearing today, you had Senator Hassan then asking Noem about what she would do if Trump tried to suspend habeas corpus, but a court then reversed the order. Will you comply with the court order

and uphold habeas corpus, or will you follow the president's directive? We are following all federal court orders and are complying with that, as is the president and every decision that I make as well. Well, that is obviously not true for anybody who reads the news. And so this interaction,

especially the part where Noam gets the definition of habeas corpus completely wrong, has gone incredibly viral. And with that, you had people saying, "'If this doesn't scare you, it should.' And really great that someone this ignorant of people's constitutional rights is in charge of removing people from this country.

As well as, I have never understood why reporters and members of Congress don't just ask questions like this more often. We need to do a better job exposing the reality that many of the people currently in charge literally have no idea what they're talking about. But then, next up, are we making America healthy again, or are we policing the poor? That is basically the question that Nebraska is about to answer with its pioneering reform of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP. With SNAP being the roughly $100 billion USDA program that helps feed some 42 million low-income Americans by subsidizing their groceries. While the federal government funds it, the state administers it. And what you saw

in Nebraska was Trump's Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins, announcing that starting next year, SNAP recipients will no longer be able to use food stamps to buy soda and energy drinks in the state. And for some additional context here, you should know that there are already some restrictions on what recipients can buy, namely alcohol, tobacco, and most controversially, stamps to buy soda and energy drinks in the state. And for some additional context here, you should know that there are already some restrictions on what recipients can buy, namely alcohol, tobacco, and most controversially, hot foods, meaning they can't buy meals that are cooked for immediate consumption.

And this is, it's also important to note in the nearly 20 years since those rules were enforced in 2008, politicians have proposed restricting everything from bottled water and soda to chips, ice cream, and so-called luxury meats like steak. But the USDA, it's consistently rejected those proposals and saying that there is no clear standard to define certain foods as good or bad. But I'm also arguing that restrictions would be hard to implement,

complicated, costly, and wouldn't necessarily change recipients' food purchases or reduce health problems. But now, with Trump in office, what was once unthinkable is now becoming policy, and it's expected to impact 152,000 people across Nebraska. Right. And this is, they're not alone in change, right? Some six other states, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia have also requested waivers to ban certain foods and drinks or expand access to hot foods. As far as the arguments that you're seeing from both sides, you have Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen, for example, saying, This is the first step to make sure that we help people that are in a lower socioeconomic status to make sure they can eat healthy again. We're not going to use government dollars to make

people unhealthy. Also in a reference to RFK Jr.'s campaign to transform public health, you had Brooke Rollins calling it a historic step to make America healthy again and making the financial argument as well. Number one cost driver in the SNAP program is sugary drinks. Junk food comes right behind it as well. You know, you had RFK himself writing back in September that it is nonsensical for U.S. taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars subsidizing junk that harms the health of low-income Americans. Then, on the other side, apart from arguments that I already mentioned about these reforms being costly and ineffective, others have argued that they're just simply cruel. You see in, for example,

current affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson writing back in February, rest of us will get guidelines. It's people who can't afford food that will get actual restrictions. Personally, I'm an egalitarian. I think if you're going to say that the government should take on the task of forcing people to modify their diets, it should do it for everyone, not just those who can't afford to eat. Adding, let them eat cake. No, really, people should have cake and a Coke or a Frappuccino too from time to time. If you wanna make people healthy, there are better ways to do that.

Ones that don't involve insulting them or punishing them. Give them healthcare, increase their ability to walk or ride a bike or join a gym, crack down on corporate polluters. And most obviously target the companies that make junk food, not the people who buy it. You know, ultimately as we wait to see how this plays out, I gotta pass the question off to you on on where do you land on this? Do you

think the reform and the changes that we're seeing in Nebraska, it makes sense, it's common sense, or are you the mindset of no, it's needlessly cruel and restrictive? Also, if you're someone that's needed, Snap, I'd really, really love your insight here. But then from that, next up, if you are a celebrity that endorsed Kamala Harris, look out. Because you've got Trump right now calling for an investigation into Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, and Bono. With them alleging, without any evidence at this point, that they were illegally paid for their endorsements. Or with them sharing a post on Truth Social questioning how much money Springsteen made for performing at a Harris rally in Atlanta. Writing, isn't that a major and illegal campaign contribution? What about Beyonce and how much went to Oprah and Bonham?

With him then calling for a major investigation and arguing candidates aren't allowed to pay for endorsements which is what Kamala did under the guise of paying for entertainment. With him then sharing another post several hours later where he claimed, according to news reports, Beyonce was paid $11 million to walk onto a stage, quickly endorse Kamala, and walk off to loud booing

for never having performed not even one song. Them again, claiming that Harris illegally paid for her endorsement and adding, "'This is an illegal election scam at the highest level. "'It is an illegal campaign contribution. "'Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, Bono, "'and perhaps many others have a lot of explaining to do.'" So a lot to unpack,

but based off of everything that's out there, first of all, again, there is absolutely zero evidence that Harris paid for endorsements, because campaign finance law literally requires that campaigns pay the fair market value to cover the cost of events that they host in order to ensure that a company or individual is not giving donations

that exceed the federal contribution limits. And when rumors first started swirling about the Harris campaign paying celebrities for their endorsements last year, you had a senior campaign advisor telling reporters that they had followed those campaign finance rules religiously, stating that all the money paid out by the campaign was for ancillary costs associated

with the performance or event, but adding that when it comes to celebrity endorsement, we do not pay, we have never paid any artist and performer, we have never paid a fee to that person. But then also beyond that, you also have some campaign experts saying that the Federal Election Commission actually has no regulations against federal campaigns

paying celebrities or influencers for endorsements, saying those endorsements wouldn't be considered illegal contributions as long as they were properly disclosed, which appears to be the case, at least for the events in question. Or with campaign finance records showing that the Harris campaign paid Oprah's company a total of $1 million for event production

about a month after she interviewed Harris at a Unite for America event. With then Oprah saying she did not take any personal fee and saying that the money was paid out for the cost of putting on the event and paying the salaries of the people who produced it. And then as far as Beyonce, who headlines an abortion rights rally for Harris in her hometown of Houston, disclosures show that the campaign paid the singer's company $165,000 in November for campaign event production, which one is a much smaller number than the $11 million payment that Trump falsely claimed

she had been paid in his post. And two, you had Beyonce's mother issuing a statement saying not only is the $11 million number a lie, but the singer paid for the flight she and her team took to and from the event. And then as for Springsteen, records indicate that the Harris campaign paid his production company roughly $75,000 for travel and event production following the Georgia rally. And then as far as Bono, it's actually totally unclear why Trump looped him in there. He's the front man for U2. He's a friend of President Biden who gave him a Presidential Medal of Freedom. But also, according to reports, he hasn't appeared at any campaign events with Harris and literally never endorsed her.

Which is also then a big part of the reason why many have argued that this is just Trump going after influential celebrities and big names who have spoken out against him. A possibility that's also further evidenced by the fact that he's taken aim at multiple famous Harris backers in recent days and weeks. Last Friday, Trump made a very angry post personally attacking Springsteen and seemingly threatening him after the singer railed against the administration during a concert in England. With Trump writing, I see that highly overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a foreign country to speak badly about the President of the United States. And then adding, this dried out prune of a rocker, his skin is all atrophied, ought to keep his mouth shut until he gets back into the country. That's just standard fare. Then we'll all see how it goes for him. And then, within the same hour, he also took aim at Taylor Swift, who of course endorsed Harris. So that one

was seemingly unprompted and unconnected to anything she's done recently with him writing. Has anyone noticed that since I said I hate Taylor Swift, she's no longer hot? Though there you have many arguing that Taylor Swift is still as big as they fucking come, she's just not touring or releasing music right now. With Axios noting, contrary to Trump's claim, Swift's wildly successful Errors tour is estimated to have taken in more than $2 billion, the highest grossing tour ever. She has 14 Grammy wins on 58 nominations,

and saying Swift was also the most streamed artist on Spotify in 2024 with 26.6 billion global streams. You know, for now, we'll have to wait to see if anything comes from this, if this is just him being loud and blowing off steam, or is there actually a legal side to this? And then I've got more news you need to know in just a minute, but first,

you know who's always hyped to see you, like no matter what kind of day that you've had? Your dog. They'll go in wild, eyes lighten up, like you're the best part of their world because you are. And the least you could do, feed them food that loves them back. And that is why I give mine Sundays for Dogs,

today's awesome sponsor. Like diet is one of the only things that we can control when it comes to their health and it makes a massive difference, especially as they age. You know, like us, dogs slow down, metabolism changes, joints get stiff, energy drops. I mean, what you feed them matters. Sundays was created by a vet who got fed up

with the processed junk in most dog food. It's made with real meat, organs, and superfoods. Zero artificial garbage, no mystery mush. And the kicker, it's air dried like jerky, so no fridge space needed, no prep, no mess. They've really nailed that sweet spot between convenient and crazy nutritious because no one has time to become a gourmet dog chef.

And honestly, switching to Sundays has been one of the best pet parent decisions I've made. So if your dogs, you ride or die, treat them like it. Just scan the QR code or head to sundaysfordogs.com slash Phil for 50% off your first order. It's sundaysfordogs.com slash Phil. And 50% off your first order. That's sundaysfordogs.com slash phil, and trust me, your dog is gonna lose their mind. But then, shifting gears from that,

next up, the Trump administration is about to hand Ashley Babbitt's family $5 million. Right, and she, if you've forgotten, is the 35-year-old woman who was infamously shot and killed at the Capitol on January 6th. But they're appearing to be trying to climb through a smashed glass panel on the door of the barricaded Speaker's Lobby,

a Trump flag draped around her neck, doors which were said to be the final security perimeter for a group of police defending lawmakers in the House chamber just down the hall, and as she appeared to crawl through the hole, Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd fired a single shot, striking her in the shoulder and killing her. Which actually made her the single Jan Sixer to die that day, and she became a martyr for the American right. Her death became a flash point in US politics. But then with that, you saw in 2021, the Justice Department finding that there was insufficient evidence

to prove that Babbitt's civil rights had been violated. With them also saying that it was reasonable for the officer to have believed that he was firing in self-defense or in defense of fleeing lawmakers. And then later that same year, after finishing an internal investigation, the Capitol Police also cleared Byrd of any wrongdoing,

saying his actions at the height of the riot potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the US Capitol and to the House chamber where members and staff were steps away. In fact, Byrd's attorney not only argued that he was justified,

but what he did was positively heroic, saying, "'He stopped the final surge of rioters "'that were mere steps from members of Congress. "'It is not hard to imagine the impact on our democracy "'had these rioters been able to reach "'their intended targets, sitting members of Congress. It is not hard to imagine the impact on our democracy had these rioters been able to reach their intended targets, sitting members of Congress. You also had Byrd himself defending his actions in an interview with NBC. There was no way to retreat, no other way to get out. You're the last line of defense and it's up to you to take the appropriate action based on the circumstances. And then that's where you found yourself. And that's where I found myself.

What made you pull the trigger? Last resort, I tried to wait as long as I could. But in the face of all that, in the years since Jan 6, Babbitt's name has become a rallying cry for the right, with people plastering her face on flags and signs, holding vigils and protests, creating hashtags on social media, and selling merch in support of her.

I mean, the American Conservative magazine even published an article comparing her to George Floyd. And this is you've had commentators and politicians alike painting her as a harmless, innocent patriot and Byrd as either negligent or even a murderer. If they think it's okay to kill Ashley Babbitt when she posed no mortal threat to anybody, not even conceivably, then they'll be happy when I die. He couldn't see her, she wasn't holding anything, they were cops. He fired blindly into a crowd. Yep.

Okay. Justified, they said. Who executed Ashley Babbitt? There's never been a trial. As a matter of fact, no one has cared about the person that shot and killed her. Ashley Babbitt was shot by an out-of-control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It's a disgrace. And so with all that, you had Babbitt's family filing a wrongful death lawsuit, and they were seeking $30 million.

With them arguing that Byrd was negligent in killing Babbitt, who was unarmed, and according to them, had her hands in the air. But you had Byrd claiming he couldn't fully see her hands or what she was carrying in a backpack. And saying what he did know was that there had been police radio reports of pipe bombs on Capitol Hill, that officers were down, and that rioters were using weapons against them. So the Justice Department, having already concluded that Byrd's shooting was justified, dug in for a trial in July, 2026. Now, what we're seeing is that appears

to have been called off with the Washington Post reporting that Trump's DOJ has now agreed in principle to settle with Babbitt's family for just under $5 million. With then up to a quarter of that reportedly going to a prior attorney to resolve a dispute with him over payment. And so, you know, for those who were horrified

by the events on January 6th, this news is as good as the DOJ signaling its support for anti-democratic insurrectionists. And then for a good number of Trump supporters, it represents a shred of justice for a peaceful protester who was wrongfully killed. But that's also not where the story ends because the White House may actually be giving out money

to more Jan Sixers than Babbitt. Right in that, because back in March, you had Trump suggesting to Newsmax that he would be open to financial reparations for the Jan 6 defendants. Is there any talk of, because they lost opportunity, they lost income, any kind of compensation fund or anything like that?

Well, there's talk about that. We have a lot of people talk about it. A lot of the people that are in government now talk about it because they, a lot of the people in government really liked that group of people. They were patriots as far as I was concerned. For now with that, we're gonna have to see if there's any movement there.

And in the meantime, I'd love to know your thoughts on this whole situation. But then jumping from that to other news, we're gonna talk about this Trump Putin phone call because it's now being seen as the latest sign the White House may be ready to walk away from its efforts to actually end the war in Ukraine. In this despite last year, Trump promising

that he would end the war in 24 hours, which obviously didn't happen. And then the goalposts just kept getting moved and moved. And last week he actually said it won't be resolved until he and Vladimir Putin got together and hashed it out in person. But now after he had a two hour phone call with Putin, he seems to be saying that nothing can really be done at all.

Instead, you had him saying that a peace deal, it could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine, and maybe with the help of the Pope, right? And that because, quote, they know details of negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. And then also he claimed that the two sides would immediately start negotiations toward a ceasefire, and more importantly, an end to the war. But, little snag there, that appears to be somewhat at odds with what the Russians are saying. Because you had Putin saying after the call that Russia is only ready to work with Ukraine on crafting a memorandum on a possible future peace agreement. And then you

had a Kremlin spokesperson claiming that there is no timeline for preparing this memorandum, and adding, it's clear that everyone wants to do this as quickly as possible, but of course, the devil is in the details. And to that point, you have Putin sticking to his demand that any resolution to end the war, that it would address the so-called root causes of the war, which Russia has claimed in the past include the existence of Ukraine as a fully independent and sovereign nation aligned with the West. And so with that, as far as any specific demands

that we've seen the Kremlin making again and again, well, they've included control over five regions of Ukraine, including large chunks of land that it's failed to seize despite the years of war. And this is, you also have Putin demanding that Ukraine be forbidden from joining NATO and building up its military as well as a suspension of all Western military aid. And now, as far as Trump, rather than pushing back, he's suggesting the U.S. might just step away.

Because after posting on Truth Social about his call with Putin, you had him also telling reporters that while he's not doing so at this time, he has a red line in his head and adding, Big egos are involved, but I think something's going to happen. And if it doesn't, I'll just back away and they'll have to keep going. And notably with that, Vice President J.D. Fan, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Trump himself have already threatened to do so in the past. But then, you know, there was this brief moment where it seemed like he may have actually woken up to the fact that the Russian president isn't exactly a good faith actor in this situation. With us seeing, for example, Trump last month warning that he wouldn't tolerate Putin tapping me along and saying that Russia shouldn't target civilian areas. But then, I don't know, they updated the firmware of his Neuralink and boom, it was just a blip.

It's just so jarring and random and it feels like you're dealing with different Trumps. Especially because understand, things have not calmed down. I mean, just a day before that phone call, Russia launched what may have been the single largest drone attack against Ukraine of the entire war. But then after the call,

what's been described as Trump's deference to Putin reportedly stunning European leaders. With Axios even reporting that Zelensky and others were debriefed about the conversation on a conference call and had hoped to hear that Putin had agreed to a ceasefire or at the very least that the US would impose penalties on him for refusing to do so.

But instead you had Trump claiming that Putin had agreed to negotiate, stressed the US would not be involved in those negotiations and even pushed back against the idea of imposing further sanctions on Russia. With world leaders reportedly seeming surprised that Trump appeared to be relatively content with what he heard from Putin and that he presented it as a new development. Because again, it does not seem like Putin has changed his position at all. And then, you know, as far as the sanctions, well, Trump has often talked about rolling back existing sanctions against Russia if it cooperates as well as dangling the possibility of new trade deals He has rarely suggested there could be negative consequences If it doesn't such as new sanctions on russia's banking and energy exports, which is why you're seeing for some

This is confirmation that trump is more interested in future business deals with russia than using his influence to secure a ceasefire Also right now there's a lot of talk around, you know If the white house does end up taking less of a role in the negotiations One of the big remaining questions is whether that would also mean an end to any military and intelligence support for Ukraine. And there, that might actually be one reason why, despite the US arguably being pretty unhelpful

in this whole situation, you had Zelensky writing on X, "'It is crucial for all of us "'that the United States does not distance itself "'from the talks and the pursuit of peace, "'because the only one who benefits from that is Putin.'" With Zelensky then also accusing Russia of trying to buy time in order to continue its war and occupation. But for now, we'll have to wait to see what happens and which Trump you get tomorrow. And then I've got even more news for you in just a moment. But first, you know that moment when

you realize the I'll figure it out later financial strategy isn't actually a strategy? It's been a while, but I've been there and what starts out as a small forgotten bill, it quickly turns into your own personal debt avalanche. One day you're just hanging out. The next day, your mailbox looks like it's a horror movie. Final notice, pay now, legal action pending. Those mystery calls lighting up your phone. It's not your long lost rich uncle.

It is debt collectors with nothing good to say. And that is exactly why I wish today's sponsor, PDS Debt, existed back in the day when I was in need. Their approach isn't one size fits all. They actually look at your specific situation with credit cards, personal loans, collections, or those medical bills that we bury in the sock drawer. And fantastically, no minimum credit score is required.

Seriously, like even if your credit's in the basement, they'll still work to help you pay off your debt faster and save money in the process. They're also A plus rated by the BBB with hundreds of five-star reviews on Google and Trustpilot because they've helped thousands of people get their heads above water financially. So if you can be certain of in life. But you can always be sure the sun will rise each morning. You can bet your bottom dollar that you'll always need air to breathe and water to drink.

And of course, you can rest assured that with Public Mobile's 5G subscription phone plans, you'll pay the same thing every month. With all of the mysteries that life has to offer, a few certainties can really go a long way. Subscribe today for the peace of mind you've been searching for. Public Mobile. Different is calling. It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients. Vodka. Soda. Natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added?

Neutral. Refreshingly simple. Then from that, next up in the news, the DOJ just slapped New Jersey Representative LaMonica McIver with federal charges, and according to Alina Haba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, she's been charged for, quote, "'Assaulting, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement.'" Right, and those charges, they stem from an incident at an ICE detention center in Newark earlier this month.

Right, so May 9th, McIver, along with other lawmakers, go to the controversial Delaney Hall Detention Center in Newark as part of a congressional oversight visit, where notably, there was a group of people outside protesting the newly reopened federal immigration detention center. And Newark Mayor Ross Baraka was reportedly refused entry into the facility,

and so he went back out to where the protest was. With then ICE officials coming out onto the public property and arresting Baraka for trespassing, and a scuffle breaks out. You've got video showing McIver moving towards the officials, arresting him while shouts of, "'Surround the mayor,' can be heard."

And so now you have both sides with the situation, pointing to the chaotic videos of this mess as evidence that the other side instigated the altercation, which thankfully didn't result in any injuries. And you know, as far as the videos, you have some where McIver can be seen pushing and shoving a law enforcement officer as she finds her way to the gate.

But this also has others' videos show her being shoved herself. And as for the charges, according to a statement from the attorney's spokesperson, McIver has yet to actually receive any documents from prosecutors. With CNN reporting that there was an attempt to negotiate a plea deal that would have avoided charges. And this is Yvette Haba saying that McIver declined the DOJ's attempt to find a solution that didn't involve charges and adding, No one is above the law, politicians or otherwise. It is the job of this office to uphold justice impartially regardless of who you are.

Now we will let the justice system work. Though on the other side, you had McIver pushing back against that narrative in her own statement, laying out the blame on the ICE agents for escalating the situation and saying, The charges against me are purely political. They mischaracterize and distort my actions and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight. With her lawyer then echoing that and saying, Rather than facilitating that inspection, ICE agents chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos. This prosecution is an attempt to shift the blame for ICE's behavior to Congresswoman McIver.

In the courtroom, facts, not headlines, will matter. We've then also seen this situation have a divisive impact within Congress, with House Democrats rallying around McIver with a letter from leadership calling the charges against her, quote, extreme morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact. Which is a very different reaction than what you've seen on the right with many calling for or celebrating the charges, including the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene even calling for McIver's expulsion, as well as Republican Representative Buddy Carter seeking to strip the committee assignments from McIver, as well as two other New Jersey representatives present at the protests on May 9th, saying this behavior constitutes an assault on our brave ICE agents and undermines the rule of law.

The three members involved in this stunt do not deserve to sit on committees alongside serious lawmakers. What's also interesting with this is that at the same time that this is happening, where Ahaba announced the charges against McIver, she also announced that the trespassing charge brought against Newark Mayor Ross Baraka was dropped. Or they're saying that they agreed to dismiss the charge, quote, for the sake of moving forward.

And even Baraka responding to the news on X saying that he was glad the charge against him was dismissed and that he's still backing MacIver. Then shifting gears from that, as we wind down today's show together, I wanna talk about our Banff of the day. You know, sometimes these stories, they're so big and far reaching,

and then other times it's small. It could be just the interaction between a few people or a small community. And today's Banff, Ali Sherkodai, it's kind of that local awesome. Because you see, Ali, he runs Luxe Cleaners and Alterations, which is this family-owned dry cleaning place in Campbell, California. One of his newest services there is offering free, fast outfit cleanings for anyone who's unemployed and on their way to a job interview. No questions asked, no limit. So if you're headed to an interview and you notice, oh no, that one nice interview shirt has a coffee stain on it, or there's a problem, you can take it into Lux and get it cleaned real quick, absolutely no charge.

As far as why Ali does this, he said the idea came to him when he was talking with other dry cleaners across the country about how they can support their community through tough times. And then with that, he said that he noticed the number of workers that were caught up in Silicon Valley sweeping layoffs. Right, and Ali himself, he is intimately familiar with how difficult it can be to be unemployed and scrambling for work. As you see Ali, he immigrated to the States from Iran in 2006, and he struggled finding a job, even with a molecular biology degree. And then when he was able to start his business in 2010, he saw the community rally around him and support him. So, you know, helping people in their hunt to find jobs, even in a small way, is his way of doing something. What I'm saying, I think it will

definitely give them some hope that the community they live in cares about them. It's not about just getting, it's about giving. That's the part that brings all of us joy. And Ali is having an impact with him saying that he gets between five and 10 people every single week coming in for help with their interview outfits. With one of those, including one customer who shared Ali and his crew pressed in under an hour

so that she could head straight to her interview with, Ali saying, We were able to help her and she left, she was very happy. And three hours later, she came back. She said she got the job. She was very excited. Be very excited. I think even more than her.

You know, I think all of this, especially in just these fucking chaotic times, it shows us that one of the ways that we can make the world better is just on our day-to-day interactions in our localities. The problems in our world, our country, our states, you know, they can feel just so impossible, so big, and we have no control, no hands on any levers.

But it is important to remember that we do have our hands on the wheel when it comes to our day-to-day interactions. And really, any change that's worth a damn, it starts on a small local level, and it echoes out from that. And I know that can sound a little kumbaya, a little foo foo and that's definitely not my vibe,

but it is my lived experience. A little good for many becomes a lot of good. And so that's why today, Ali, we don't know each other. We'll probably never meet, but you are my bamf of the day. But then my friends is the end of your show today. I love your faces. I hope you enjoy being filled in today and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.