Dems launch PROBE into Trump over pardons (Plus: UFO files RELEASED) | RISING

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:12]Good morning and welcome to Rising. We have a great show for you today. Happy Friday, Erin.

[00:00:16]>> Happy Friday, Mother's Day weekend. Want to give a quick shout out to my mom, Karen, who's at my house and actually gets to watch live today.

[00:00:23]>> Oh, wow. Hi, mom. And I get happy Mother's Day to my mom, too.

[00:00:26]>> I'm excited about this. Hopefully Colin has something special planned for you.

[00:00:29]>> They haven't told you what they're doing for you yet.

[00:00:31]>> It better be good.

[00:00:32]>> It better be good. What are you a breakfast in bed? Do you want brunch? Do you want to go do an activity? What What would it be? Can you tell them what you'd like now?

[00:00:39]>> I would love a massage any day. Massage is great for me. And just chill and have no chores for the day.

[00:00:45]>> There you go. That's perfect.

[00:00:46]>> It sounds like a good Sunday to me.

[00:00:48]>> Exactly.

[00:00:48]>> Well, happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there. And let's kick it off.

[00:00:52]Lindsay, as a mom, what's in your lens today?

[00:00:54]>> All right. It's not about motherhood, unfortunately, but something more serious. What stands out to me about these new questions surrounding President Donald Trump's pardons isn't just who received clemency. It's how openly transactional the entire conversation around presidential pardon power has become. Democratic lawmakers are now asking more than a dozen pardon recipients whether their clemency came through what they describe as possible quote pay-to-play circumstances. And while presidents from both parties have faced criticism over controversial pardons before, this moment feels different because so many of those cases involve direct political loyalty, campaign donations, business relationships, or personal proximity to Trump himself. The list is staggering. A crypto billionaire whose company had financial ties back to a Trumpbacked venture. A former governor connected to a donor family that gave millions to a MAGA super PAC. political allies tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

[00:01:50]Reality TV stars whose daughter publicly campaigned for Trump. Wealthy donors and executives who gave hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, to Trump related committees before receiving clemency. Now, Democrats on Capitol Hill want answers, and rightfully so.

[00:02:05]Democratic Senator Peter Welch and Representative Dave Min released a joint statement saying, quote, "Executive clemency has historically been understood as an act of grace exercised in the interest of justice and the public welfare, but it cannot become a tool for political favoritism, corruption, or pay-to-play dealings. The pardon power is one of the broadest authorities a president has. It's intentionally enormous. The Constitution gives presidents the ability to forgive federal crimes with very few limits."

[00:02:34]The idea was that mercy could act as a safeguard against injustice. But critics argue that these pardons raise questions about whether access, influence, and loyalty now matter more than remorse or rehabilitation. Supporters of Trump, meanwhile, say many of these prosecutions were politically motivated to begin with, especially cases connected to January 6th or the president's allies. Now, what may resonate most with Americans in all of this is not just the politics, it's the money. Numbers don't lie. Some of these pardon recipients owed massive restitution payments or fines tied to fraud, wire crimes, and financial misconduct. According to reporting and congressional references, the total financial burden tied to these cases, meaning the money effectively erased or reduced through clemency, could exceed a billion dollars. Take Lawrence Duran, who was convicted in a massive Medicare fraud scheme, then later granted clemency. or Todd and Julie Chrysley, reality TV stars convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion who were pardoned in May last year. Well, uh I will start with the very obvious here, which is Joe Biden gave a blanket pardon to his entire family, including his son, for previous crimes and future crimes. You want to talk about using pardon power egregiously and those closest and most connected. Look at the Biden crime family. Hello. Opportunity number one, Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother.

[00:03:59]Bill Clinton also pardoned someone who was convicted of a $ 48 million financial related crime as well. And and this is speaking more to every opportunity Democrats have to find a way to investigate Trump. This is what they're going to be doing if they take over the House with midterms in November. It doesn't matter that those people the the Chryslies were given a very aggressive sent sentence even by normal judicial sentencing standards.

[00:04:26]And so for the president to step in and say we understand the point you were making, but these people can be free now. That is justice in and of itself.

[00:04:33]And it may be people that supported the president, but it also people who the justice system they feel that the administration and they have a thorough vetting process on this. people can try and get access and pay attorneys or pay other people to try and give them insider access to the White House to get a clemency to get him pardoned. It doesn't mean it's going to be guaranteed. It doesn't mean any of that money is going to the president. And this is just showing that Democrats are going to use everything as a rabbit hole to try and say Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history.

[00:05:03]Joe Biden on the way out pardoned his son Hunter for tax crimes for multiple crimes. and Democrats were just kind of like that's that's the nature of business around here. Clemency is to your point broadly granted for a reason and I have not seen anything that validates that there were any crimes committed or pay for play and Democrats are doing this to try and continue this witch hunt against Donald Trump that the Republicans will see yet again. It doesn't matter the topic. It could be this or something else. It doesn't matter to you if he pardon a cryptocurrency billionaire and then his cryptocurrency investments with his son shoot up because of investments from that same billionaire.

[00:05:40]>> I'm not saying that they can't investigate that, but I'm not saying the two happened in a way that actually insinuates there was a crime. I don't know for a fact that that investment wasn't done before the clemency or after or was even related to it. Right? You we don't know that. It's fair to ask the questions, but Democrats automatically assume and jump to the assumption of the conviction of crime before there's actually any any >> jury. Democrats are saying right now in Congress, let's look into this. That's exactly what they're doing. And I I the my biggest issue is not like I we can discuss Joe Biden pardoning all those people and we can discuss the pardon process and I know that it has blanket pardons. Family members are a little bit different than if somebody's paying you, right? you still shouldn't do it. But someone's paying to play is against the law.

[00:06:25]>> But no, but nobody's paying the president directly. No one's paying the administration.

[00:06:28]>> But investing in his businesses looks like pay to play. And the president has jump into the New York Times says at the minimum in his second um stint as president, Trump has made over $1.3 billion. That's a tremendous amount of money for his businesses in his first term. So now that the businesses So nobody was saying, "Oh, look, Trump's so bad. and he lost all this money in the first term and now in the second term they're saying, "Oh, he's getting rich off of it when the when when that wasn't the fact." And it doesn't have to do with the presidency. It has to do with the fact that they're making smarter business decisions here. And whether that's crypto or the properties or anything else that his family does, >> the properties that are getting lenient uh relationships with the president like in Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and their governments are laxing rules so that President Trump can build immediately while he's playing favorites with other countries. That's acceptable as well.

[00:07:15]Like there's a lot of willing and dealing happening where he's able to build quickly in Vietnam and bypass all the regulations in Vietnam.

[00:07:21]>> That's the company. That's the country's choice. You can't blame Trump for the cho for the choice that Vietnam would have made with a private business entity that they believe is economically beneficial to them to bring it in and say yes, we will we will fasttrack this as a business entity. They didn't say to themselves, Donald Trump, yes, you as president of the United States, you are the one asking me to do this. So I am doing it because you're president of the United States. Democrats jump down these so much grace for anything that looks like you guys like to not you guys the Republican party has made it a tentpole to talk about fraud and make that a tent pole issue.

[00:07:55]>> I haven't seen anything.

[00:07:56]>> I just I want to talk about this.

[00:07:57]They've made it a tent pole issue for the second term specifically with Minnesota. And I said this is accurate.

[00:08:03]The part I didn't like is the attack on the Somali community. But we should go after fraud. There was a massive fraud even in Republican states like Ohio after COVID. So fraud is a tenpole issue, but then the president has pardoned people over fraud. So how much does fraud matter to the party? I want to know when we're talking about Carlos Watson convicted of fraud. Adriana Cambos convicted of fraud. Um who is it?

[00:08:25]Lawrence Durant Medicare fraud. These are people with millions of dollars in fraud convictions that were pardoned by the president. So how much does specifically Medicare fraud or fraud in general matter? Todd and the Chrysalies fraud. Like does fraud matter or not to the party? It does matter but you are conflating two very different things.

[00:08:41]How the justice system worked for specific individuals in specific cases when you are lumping them all together >> more than 12 cases about fraud. But we don't know. We don't know the fact going wrong >> and you believe that all of a sudden the justice system is perfect in the United States. You don't think it could have been >> for wealthy people that committed fraud.

[00:08:57]Why are they not held to the same standards as the Somalians in Minnesota?

[00:08:59]They should be. Well, actually, tell me where there are Somalians in Minnesota right now that are being thrown into jail for egregious amounts of time and have been convicted because right now those are ongoing investigations. So, it's not a fair comparison to make. But if people have the opportunity and the ability to advocate for themselves to be receive clemency or a pardon and the president allows that, that is the authority.

[00:09:19]>> It's not just the opportunity and ability. is if you have the millions of dollars to campaign and lobby the president to pardon you and you get access to him and he >> that happens in every administration that is >> well then you probably will get pardoned because you're wealthy. But if you're poor and commit fraud, you're just going to have to be poor and be a fraudster.

[00:09:34]>> Well, not necessarily. These are all very different things. You cannot just clump it all together and call it one big outcome and say this is exactly what's happening. Democrats like to jump down that rabbit hole. Let's see how it evolves first.

[00:09:45]>> All right. The DoD officially releasing some newly declassified materials about its investigations into alien life.

[00:09:51]We'll be right back.

[00:09:56]Breaking this morning, the Trump administration has begun to release files related to UFOs and quote extraterrestrial life. The Defense Department releasing a statement on the new document drop, writing, quote, "The American people can now access the federal government's declassified UAP files instantly. The latest UAP videos, photos, and original source documents from across the entire United States government are all in one place. No clearance required. While past administrations sought to discredit or dissuade the American people, President Trump is focused on providing maximum transparency to the public who can ultimately make up their own minds about the information contained in these files.

[00:10:36]>> Wow. And it's not just the documents.

[00:10:38]Take a look at these photos released as well. What? So, the problem that first photo really bothers me. All these photos bother me because I know one of them that we saw, the one that looked really dramatic, um it was like this big oval Yeah. metal thing. That is a rendering, just to be clear, of um corroborated story by multiple people in some field. Look at this. So, they made a rendering of what >> several eyewitnesses said they saw. What are you talking about? What What would that be? How do they explain this? This looks like the shot from Teletubbies with the sunshine child. Like, who made that rendering? That's exactly what that looks like to me. I mean, which it should, right? Like, you know, the I This is great. More information, more access. I'm totally fine with all of it.

[00:11:24]I have to believe there like I fully believe there's something else out there. It may not be what we've seen in Men in Black or Little Green Men.

[00:11:31]>> Yeah. Or Independence Day, right? Like it may not be those kind of big scary monsters, but this universe is too big for us to be the only things that have intelligent life around here.

[00:11:43]>> And I'm just happy with more information. I think the American public from I don't know if you ever watched Bob Lazar who says he used to work with the government. He was on Joe Rogan and every other show that would have him and talked a lot about how >> basically his whole legacy and experiences were erased because of the information that he's seen or knows or sharing. and you wonder why he's able to walk around without like the death well he said he's getting death threats but able to walk around still freely if he has all this classified information um but it speaks to even whether you believe his story or not I think it speaks to the larger idea that the average American and there's been polls about this believe that there is information and life out there that we're not being told about and so if the government is hiding anything or not hiding anything we can say what Neil deGrasse Tyson said okay maybe it'll be uneventful but at least we have we're armed with the information We need to feel comfortable that we're not going to see a green man just walking down the street one of these days.

[00:12:34]>> I mean, right, this is how conspiracy theories start as a vacuum of information. And so providing this hopefully helps, but nobody's ever going to believe it, even if they're given all the information. Also, all of those images like what what are those? Like it looks like a speck on a screen. Like it looks like maybe you're looking through a microscope at a science project. Like I I get that this is more information, but for me, I'm like, "Huh?" Like, >> well, like look at this. Like that looks like a dirty screen. That looks like someone This looks like This reminds me of microscope. That one's good.

[00:13:04]>> That looks like a microscope. The other one looked like my cousin Vinnie when they hold up the photo and they're like, "How much gunk is on this screen that you can tell the tire tracks from over there?" Like that looks like a helicopter. See? Like, >> well, so we had Anna Pauline Olivia on the show. That looks like a scratch days ago, and she was explaining like that she's been at calling for this. So, she just put like this cryptic tweet on X early this morning saying 8:00 a.m.

[00:13:27]Like, so I just want to hear now for everybody that was calling for this and said that this needs to be available to the public. Tell us what to walk us through this.

[00:13:34]>> Give me a bit of info.

[00:13:35]>> This is what you had access to. So, now like spell it out for us. Like I want >> photos to me.

[00:13:40]>> I don't want to see something that looks like a helicopter. The only one I biggest problem with is the the metal object. But that's a drawing.

[00:13:46]>> Is the Teletubby drawing, right? See, now we have questions. This is what happened.

[00:13:50]>> Okay, Annapole. No, no, no. We need answers. Now, let's jump to Iran. Let's take a listen to the president.

[00:13:56]>> They trifled with us today. We blew him away.

[00:14:01]>> President Trump says the ceasefire is still on after the military exchanged fire with Iran in the Straight of Hormuz yesterday.

[00:14:08]>> Now, Sentcom said in a statement that troops had quote intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes while three US ships were moving through the strait to the Gulf of Oman. Luckily, none of the ships were hit.

[00:14:22]>> Trump took to Truth Social after the exchange, writing in part, quote, "Missiles were shot at our destroyers and were easily knocked down. Likewise, drones came and were incinerated while in the air. They dropped ever so beautifully down to the ocean, mfly dropping to its grave." Now, as for Iran, it accused the US of launching quote unprovoked attacks. Meanwhile, the country's leaders are reportedly still mulling over the US proposal to open the strait and end the war. A deal the president again urged them to sign or else.

[00:14:54]>> If it doesn't get signed, they're going to have a lot of pain. They're going to have a lot of pain. They want to sign it. I will tell you, they want to sign it a lot more than I do.

[00:15:05]So my favorite part we'll start with is he said they were trifling which reminds me of the Destiny's Child song, right?

[00:15:14]Good. Yeah. This is exactly >> I think the audience probably sick of us bringing it back to the '9s.

[00:15:20]>> Sorry. Millennial status oozes out.

[00:15:22]>> And also I just think the way they were like a butterfly drop into the way they were describing this is not a video game. Uh, but there really is a disconnect between what SenCom's saying is that we're in a deescalation phase and trying to figure out how to really back out of this war and then every other day which some people look at as a tactic. I think it looks more like boy who cried wolf is the president continuously saying we're going to hit them hard. We're going to obliterate them. We're going to and it's like every day, you know, at what point does that tactic become less effective? Um, and we also this week have about faced on this whole idea of having project freedom.

[00:15:54]like we were going to escort ships and even before the straight shutdown, I was explaining this to the audience or and talking to Robbie about this LA earlier this week, like a 100 ships were going through there a day from 87 different countries. We have about 12 ships that are able to escort anything and then we'd have everything else in the sky helping escort. So, you're basically asking 87 countries to play Russian roulette with their lives >> with the potential that they'll be involved in a conflict that has nothing to do with them just to get their fertilizer to where it needs to go or oil to where it needs to go. I don't know that I would take that risk as a pedestrian that just wants to do my job of transportation.

[00:16:24]>> Well, and also that speaks like when Trump was originally talking about this very early on in the Iranian conflict.

[00:16:30]He was like, "Oh, well, they have insurance." Like the insurance will cover the boats, right? But that doesn't cover the lives on the boat of the captain. He was like, "Sure, let me give this a go." Um, but to your point about like how many times can you keep saying like, "You're going to get hit hard.

[00:16:42]You're going to get hit hard." Well, Trump has hit them hard a number of times. It's clear that the president doesn't want to have to escalate uh military action against Iran, right?

[00:16:53]They retaliated to strikes and to boats, but they have gone back in and and gone after their infrastructure again, and they haven't gone after the targets.

[00:17:00]They said there were still targets on that list when they brought in the ceasefire. So, it's clear the president doesn't want to continue an escalation.

[00:17:07]But also, the Iranians should know that there still are targets on that target list. And eventually, this is a president who you should not call a bluff on because eventually he's going to say, "Okay, drop more bombs." You guys, we've tried, right? You saw Kushner and Witoff go before the, you know, right before the strike happened, right before the Iranian war started and they were over there trying to negotiate and then boom, the next day that fell apart and the president struck, right?

[00:17:31]This is what happens. He's very clear and communicative about what he's going to do. It's a matter of when he does it that matters. And at this point, the ceasefire is still holding, right? They tried to attack the US and the US is like, "Lol, get your drone out of here."

[00:17:45]Lol.

[00:17:45]>> And like smacks it out of the sky and then keeps going with it. But I think that the president at this point wants the Iran wants the steel done and he wants it done before he goes to China.

[00:17:55]And China is this week coming up. So this is a tight time frame. I think you're going to see a lot of action in this week because I think they leave Wednesday for China. They arrive in China. So it's coming up fast. They want this done before they leave. So the deal is the sticking point for me because in 2018 the president spent a long time attacking JCPOA the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama had in place and he made it he said he described it like a disaster you know nothing that he wants to replicate in any way and he said he's going to apply maximum pressure which we know then Iran started stock piling uranium which led them to the position that they are today where we said that we needed to obliterate their facilities last year and then go to war over because of their nuclear capabilities that they started really after that deal was tore up. So when we look at what the president's going to do next, I mean the deal that he submits and moves forward with cannot look anything close to the deal that Obama had in place and not just because of ego because then the American public, anybody who's looking at history in the last decade is going to say, "Wait, why did we go to war?"

[00:18:54]>> Because we ripped up a deal. We said they stockpiled uranium. The deal was maybe not the best in the world, but it was stopping them from stockpiling to the level that we needed to attack. They stockpiled. We attacked. Now we're at war after we obliterated it and people are like, "Wait, just to go back to something that looks similar to that, we could have just extended that one in 2018 and we wouldn't have had the same issues that we have right now."

[00:19:15]>> But it's clear right now that the Iranian that the Iranians could not be trusted even with the JCPOA, that that deal was not stopping them from enrichment. That that deal was not stopping them from nuclear proliferation. And it was the Iranians themselves who said they had what 9 10 11 nuclear weapons ready to go at the moment's notice. And that's why the president decided to strike. The Iranians said that themselves this year that they had multiple nuclear weapons.

[00:19:38]So that conversation about whether or not the JCPOA worked, it didn't. It did not work.

[00:19:44]>> We're talking about 2026, >> right? Because this was a ramp up at the end 2018, >> but but at the end of the but at the end of the JCPOA, not only were restrictions going to be lifted, but they were going to be able to enrich to the levels they wanted. They were doing that in the JCPOA. The Iranians were not being trusted. So whatever deal the president gets and right now his hardest line on a deal from what reporting is showing is getting that enriched uranium out from underneath the the site where they bombed everything originally to make sure that everything is absolutely out of the country and they do not have anything left behind. That was not in the JCPOA and enforcement mechanisms were very weak in the JCPOA. So even if somehow this has a timetable which I think is a bad idea, don't give the Iranians an opportunity to know what their out is on when they can start trying to bomb everybody and build nukes again. we don't need that for them. But if that has that, it doesn't mean it's the same thing as JCPOA. Those two things and JCPOA was clearly a failure because the Iranians had nuclear facilities and capabilities of their own accord that needed to be wiped out. So if the deal somehow includes things that look similar, it doesn't make it the same and it's clear JCPOA was not working.

[00:20:50]>> But the bigger question, even if that deal is not working, is that a great negotiator would figure out how to talk this through rather than start >> you can't talk to the Iranians.

[00:20:57]Everybody knows that. Everybody's seen that and Obama has seen it. You've seen it for the last 47 years.

[00:21:02]>> What President Trump's going to do is lift sanctions. Uh, you know, I mean, it's going to look very similar. So, everything the same enemy is going to have the same sanction lifted so they can make even more money and all the things that everybody complained about.

[00:21:13]>> But if there's tougher enforcement mechanisms, if they get all the uranium out, if there are other measures that are given to it that strengthen it and actually make it enforceable because JCPOA was not being enforced, then yes, absolutely. Those are things that need to happen. And if it looks similar five, but if it's actually enforceable and keeps them from it, then it succeeds.

[00:21:32]JCPOA did not stop that.

[00:21:33]>> And even if it's enforceable, I just want to know, was the war necessary to get to this endgame?

[00:21:38]>> That's a fair question. Yep.

[00:21:39]>> All right. A sitting congressman calling for the arrest of a member of his state's legislature after a heated confrontation yesterday? Doesn't go anywhere.

[00:21:51]All right. Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett calling for the arrest of a state representative after a heated confrontation this at the state capital in Nashville. Let's take a look.

[00:22:02]>> You got me all tied up. My brother is wrong with you. Now, that man, Representative Justin Pearson, getting into it with a Tennessee Highway Patrol trooper after the conclusion of a special session that redrew Tennessee's congressional map. The new map would split his hometown of Memphis, previously a single majority black district, between three new districts.

[00:22:34]That effort sparked protests in the state house gallery where that confrontation happened. Pearson was reportedly defending his brother who was among those protesters, but some online saw it as an attack on the troopers who were doing their job. Tim Burchett seemed to agree, writing on X. He needs to go to jail. Well, I can tell you this much. I did see him shove that officer.

[00:22:56]That is assault. Like, you can't I I I said this like a lot in the last two weeks. I don't know how many adults miskeep your hands to yourself day at school, but you can't assault a police officer. You can't shove an officer. You can't shove anybody. So that alone is an issue and I don't care if he's a state rep. It's clear his brother was in the gallery and to what the reporting is was causing an issue and was being removed.

[00:23:15]That is a private property. That's completely legal means for that. And for him to get involved to try and stop it as a lawmaker and then to threaten the officer and then to push the officer. I don't know that that's the means for you need to throw him in jail, but absolutely he should be getting in trouble with that. Keep your hands to yourself. I don't know how many days I have to say it. Keep your hands to yourself. Look, I have no um rebuttal to try to fight about being that aggressive towards somebody who actually is has to do their job, right? There is way ways to protest back against authority that you think maybe is doing the wrong thing. In that case, they were probably just monitoring the state house and so he's screaming at him and who he's really upset with is congressional leadership that voted on this new map.

[00:23:55]Um and so some of I just so I agree with you. He shouldn't be I don't know that he should be go I don't want him to go to jail. I I I certainly want to say that this is not appropriate, right? So, and say that on record, but I think why he's upset and rightfully so because I read his whole um statement that he released after this incident is that he called it things like Jim Crow 2.0 or politically lynching and these are racially charged words. But if you think about in Memphis and the Voting Rights Act and why districts or black districts were created, it's not because of the same thing of like political gain like gerrymandering. They were created because the Voting Rights Act was trying to provide a voice to people that were historically disenfranchised or silenced on purpose by the law. So, they're like, "Let's create places where people in this community, no matter where they lean politically, can have a voice because we're organizing it in that way on purpose because they were intentionally split up in a way that they would not have a voice, right?

[00:24:47]They'd be overpowered by other people that usually would align on things. And so, when everyone tries to say that it's the same and there should be no passion around this, it's not the same. is it's very different to distinguish between racial vote dilution and what is ordinary partisan gerrymandering. I don't agree with gerrymandering. I think that it's wrong on both sides of the aisle. I understand that Democrats do it. I understand that in Virginia nobody really wanted it. 51% is not some huge margin that says the whole state wanted it so bad. I get that. But I do think when we start to look at Louisiana and some other states, it's a significantly different to me just because of the history of this country and how there weren't even like in Louisiana for example, one-third of that state is black and there was only one district that was a black district. And it's not to say that all black people will vote the same. It's like why is there not a district that represents the huge community of color in Louisiana?

[00:25:37]>> Because we can't segregate and we shouldn't segregate based on the color of skin for representation in this country. and the Supreme Court when that law was created, it served the purpose it needed to, which was equal representation. But our country has vastly changed in the 50 years some odd since 60 years since the Voting Rights Act was passed. So now to continue to allow for segregation based on the color of one's skin in these districts is illegal in this country. It's it because our times have changed and the needs for certain laws to protect certain groups will evolve over time as does the de the demographics of our nation and the makeup of our states and how we need to more equitably define representation in this country. But to continue to have to make that the point that we need just a district for black people so they have a voice that is racism and segregation in and of itself. It's saying that that we can't equally have voices in this country, which is what we believe we can now. And I agree with you on the gerrymandering. I'm not for it. I've never been for it. I think this is silly season because we're watching just a spiral of nonsense instead of making sure we are doing what we should do in this country, which is everyday fight to make sure that people who should legally vote can legally vote and that we are protecting the right of everybody in this country to vote, have their voice, and have adequate representation. That should be the focus instead of all of these power grabs. But one party does it, the other party does it, and we end up with this spiral sister nonsense. And and we get exactly what we deserve on Capitol Hill. We get exactly what we deserve in the leadership in this country sometimes, which feels woefully inadequate. When when you think about it, DC, these are the best and brightest that come out of our states. And at the state level, when you see all this infighting, those are people who didn't, you know, didn't necessarily lead the state. Not saying that there aren't brilliant state legislators. There are many brilliant state legislators, but the these fights will continue because the partisan nature of power grabs in this country have not changed. And you see it from the top down. It doesn't matter if it's the national federal law or the state law. It's just I don't like any of it. But I think in Tennessee, what we saw there, that's disgusting.

[00:27:46]And I agree about his behavior. But I do think that idealistically the country will be to a point where we don't see color. Right. I I love that idea. Right.

[00:27:55]This is what Martin Luther King preached and I hope that we get there. But to be honest, it's like almost if you ask me, do I believe everything lawmakers say?

[00:28:02]Yeah. You know that we both talk about that. You've worked specifically and intensely in Congress and close to it.

[00:28:08]There's a lot of nuance there. So, we would ideally be a country that doesn't need to be organized to provide a voice for people of color. But historically, even 50 or 60 years doesn't tell me that we came far enough that there's not still disenfranchised communities.

[00:28:23]specifically in the south. I think it's easy for us to sit in DC and see how diverse it is and how there's people, you know, we have a black mayor, uh, Mariel Bowser, right? We have a lot going on in DC that's in Maryland, too.

[00:28:34]Governor Westmore, like this is not a big deal. In the south, these things are still, I mean, we're still seeing the first black doctors in certain places, but and it's just like we haven't gotten to the same place down south that they are perhaps up north. It was even designed like that when you think about the history of our country and freedom for people of color. And so I just caution that we're not looking at the political maps and saying how can we silence voices and there's any racism in that whole idea because the communities were created to create a voice and I know plenty of down southspecific black Republicans >> closely.

[00:29:05]>> So they exist there. I just don't want to silence the voice because we're trying to change the rules to make sure that the people you want are voting in your district to get more votes. It's like I just want to make sure we're still being fair and abiding by the Constitution that we all want to aspire to because there's still some bad actors there and I don't want to disenfranchise people just because we're trying to prove a point that we want our party in charge.

[00:29:25]>> Well, that's right. And it's the equitability thing, right? We everybody deserves equal representation in this country and everybody deserves a voice in this country and that should be the focus. But instead, it has become power and proximity to power and if you don't have proximity to power, you better have the money to get you the proximity to power in this country. And those are not great things that we have really kind of made a little bit of a focal point in our nation. But that doesn't mean that we need to continue to force segregation for congressional districts in this country to say that we need a black only district. If I said there was a white only district, that would be inappropriate and racism. And it it works both ways. I do see your point that we can be doing more in this nation. Absolutely. Are you kidding me?

[00:30:07]For minorities, for women, for people of color, for for opportunity. Absolutely.

[00:30:12]But that doesn't mean that the way to do it is by gerrymandering maps based on this color of people's skin. And and it doesn't mean that we need to gerrymander for power in this country either. And it certainly doesn't mean that that guy shouldn't get in trouble for assaulting a police officer no matter where the passions are. Because to your point, there is a lot of passion behind this across the country. People do feel like they're losing their voice, especially in a state.

[00:30:35]>> And that's the power piece. Like as you jerrymandered for power, there's people of color and people across the board.

[00:30:41]Virginia, >> right? People feel like they have no say anymore, >> right?

[00:30:44]>> And and historically, people, specifically people of color in Louisiana, fought years just to get a voice because they were intentionally losing their voice. So to be gerrymandered into a position where you feel like you're losing your voice again, now we're reverting back to the history that we all tried to go past.

[00:30:58]>> But they're not gerrymandering based on race, right? They're gerrymandering based on power. And so to continue to try to pursue just special district >> of that is that people in one category of race are silenced, then that brings us back to You can show me the specific district where that would happen. I take your point, but we don't know that that's actually happening anywhere. Play out in Memphis and then see how it goes for them. And if they start because then the person that gets voted in, let's say they're Democrat or Republican, if it's not who the majority that live there wanted and then they start to have situations and I'm bringing up small things like the potholes never get fixed or whatever. You don't have people around you that are caring about your district in the same way. It has to be.

[00:31:35]It's like why I argue for community policing. Like people are looking for people who understand them to represent them because we we've seen too often the disconnect when people who don't understand you go to Congress and represent you. Then you have nothing happening and everybody mad. Yeah.

[00:31:49]>> And so we don't want more. What we're doing now is this slippery slope that we have I fear already gone way too far with.

[00:31:56]>> I completely agree. Completely agree.

[00:31:57]>> All right. Coming up, the State Department is set to revoke thousands of passports. Stick around to find out why.

[00:32:05]Okay. And the State Department has announced they will begin revoking the passports of parents who owe child support money.

[00:32:11]>> A State Department official said in a statement, quote, "We are expanding a common sense practice that's been proven effective at getting those who owe child support to pay their debt. Under President Trump and Secretary Rubio's leadership, we're working across agency lines to ensure American children receive the support they need and deserve. Once parents resolve their debts, they can once again enjoy the privilege of a US passport. Under a federal law set in 1996, parents who owe more than $2500 in unpaid child support are subject to having their passport revoked. Now, the State Department told the AP that this latest initiative will focus on those who owe $100,000 or more, but that the initiative will soon be expanded to those who owe more than 2500.

[00:32:55]>> Do it. I'm here for it. I'm 100% here for it. you owe money for your children and you're not paying child support.

[00:33:02]One, you're probably a scumbag. And two, you shouldn't be traveling abroad. You don't have the means. If you can't be paying for your kids, you should not be going to Cancun. You should be making sure that your kids have what they need to go to school. I am all for this.

[00:33:15]Absolutely. I I I say expand it to the $2,500. I know they got to roll it out and ramp it up and make sure it goes, but if you're not paying your child support, that means your kids are missing out on something. And don't get me wrong, if you need to go to court and you need to adjudicate it to have your monthly amounts changed because of financial hardship, there are means to do that and make sure that this is not used as retaliatory or inappropriately used against a parent who maybe is in a financial hardship. But I can tell you, you don't pay your child support and you owe somebody child support, you scumbag.

[00:33:44]You scumbag and you don't deserve to travel.

[00:33:47]>> Listen, there's not going to be a lot of push back, I don't think, from most people to think that somebody is chilling in Maldes but also not, you know, paying for their kids. So, that's obviously, you know, going to be going without saying that most people would support this, especially when you talk about that $100,000 threshold. Like, how long and how much do you make to not be paying? Like, how ridiculous of a person are you? It's kind of like >> insane. Um, I think that what has been effective about this from what I saw is that once this was announced by the State Department, a lot of people were fearful about the idea of it even happening. It hasn't even like before it's even enacted and started quickly paying. So, that's a good result of this. of the thousands of people that were on it started quickly trying to figure out how to pay before they get forced to get their passport taken away so they don't want their lifestyle ruined. Yeah, >> I do think when you go down to the 2500 and again I agree that people should pay their child support should not be having lavish lifestyles. But when you go down to owing 2500 like let's say that could be like one or two months mispayments because you have no job or financial hardship or even like in this economy some people had long-term jobs that are getting cut by different sectors changing in industries. Then you can get in a situation where now your passport is revoked and you're not able to pay because you actually have not been able to pay that 2500 could be low. If you think about somebody making six figures, let's say, who was out of work for 6 months. So now if you missed three months of payments because you had literally zero income and you're on unemployment, then what is the strategy there to not take get your passport taken away? Not that you need the passport to go travel, but also with the new laws under the Save Act, there's some issues with if you get your passport taken away, you might need your ID actually for that second verification that you guys want to make sure that you can vote. So, I don't think people should be >> disenfranchised because they didn't pay child support if it's a financial hardship. Now, if you're banking on if you're having a vacation in Cancun and owe 100 grand, that's totally different than a person who missed a payment and is missing $2,500 as the minimum threshold. So courts are there for that adjudication process to make sure if you fall in financial hardship that you're able to not get completely destroyed in your efforts to try to provide for your children. So that adjudication process already exists in the family court system in every state in this country.

[00:35:52]And to your point about passports and voting, if you got your passport, it means you have multiple forms of identification that the federal government already agrees with. So you'll be fine if you don't have it. And if you live in a state like the great state of New York where we both grew up, uh you can get something called an enhanced ID that even without your passport allows you to cross over into Canada with just that driver's license now instead of having to have a passport. So even if you needed to do it, there's still ways to get out of the country legally without a passport just based on some of these like locations like New York. I mean, we grew up going across into Canada pretty frequently.

[00:36:24]It's not that hard. I grew up closer to Toronto than I did to New York City.

[00:36:27]That's how big the state is. But again, even if you're not, if you're at that $2,500 level and it's, you know, you were out of work, that's where you need to go back to court to family court and adjudicate the process. It doesn't mean you can just stop simply stop paying.

[00:36:40]And I think that's where a lot of people get themselves tripped up, not only in the judicial system, but in the family court system in this country is to say, "Well, I can't pay this, so I'm just not going to." That's not how that works.

[00:36:50]That is a court order that mandates you provide to a certain level of care for your children, for your offspring. And if you're unable to do that, then you go to the court again and say,"I need to have an adjustment on this based on where my financial situations are now."

[00:37:05]This is all completely possible. They don't ha nobody has to lose their passport if they pay their child support. And if you decide to have a kid, you've got 18 years of making sure you do right by them financially. And so, you know what? If that's $2,500 and you're in financial hardship, you've already been in the f the family court system once because you had this process adjudicated for you to end up with child support. So, you should know to how to be able to go back and talk to the judge and say you need a financial hardship change there. And so, like I even on the low end of that, I can't even make the argument to say you lose your passport, you're not going to be able to vote. And listen, be glad I'm not an elected official because I feel so strongly that you have to pay your child support that if you don't, I think you should lose your right to vote until you get right with >> you're going too far. People we can't we're not the moral executioner in this country and say, "Okay, well, morally, you're not a good person."

[00:37:52]>> THIS IS WHY I'M NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

[00:37:54]THIS IS WHY I'M NOT an elected official because I think you should pay.

[00:37:57]>> You You have a passport. I have a passport. They last 10 years. Just because I had the documents a decade ago to get my stuff in order doesn't mean I have them now.

[00:38:03]>> It means you could do it again. You did it once. I got a little faith.

[00:38:05]>> I know. I'm just saying. I'm just argu I'm being I'm playing a little devil's.

[00:38:08]So just because I had those documents doesn't mean I have them again. And then also let's say there's people who are out of work that let's say did have a high level job and you need some of that identification to get the next opportunity and now we're taking it away. So you might be taking away the opportunity for them to make more money.

[00:38:22]Let's say you work >> good luck then good luck explaining to your employer as a high netw worth individual why you don't have a passport and the means to identify yourself because you got behind on your child support >> because of financial hardship. People who make a lot of money can also have financial hardship and at that point you need to go to the court costs money right back and forth costs money. Getting a good lawyer costs money. These are NOT FREE THINGS.

[00:38:42]>> WELL, NEITHER is a child and neither is being a responsible enough adult to decide if you want to have intercourse with another person that the outcome could lead to another person being bored. And so all of this like, oh man, it could be so hard. Raising kids ain't easy, but having fun that one night might have stuck you with 18 years. Pay your child support. And this is also why I should not be an elected official because I would be very mean to people who don't pay that.

[00:39:04]>> Again, I want to go on record and say I'm for this. I think people should pay and should not be gallivanting the globe if they're not paying. I don't even think I also I also don't think we should stop people's ability to find new work which potentially could be an outcome of this or stop their ability to uh have access to voting and other things that a passport is needed because of this like they for example my daughter was registering for school right she needs a passport and so some jobs that are freelance you need a passport social security card so if you misplace your social security card you need A PASSPORT SO NOW YOU CAN'T EVEN WORK YOU CAN'T EVEN AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY adult >> we have to make sure that we're not responsible.

[00:39:44]>> Okay.

[00:39:45]>> You got to be responsible to keep keep your stuff together and pay your child support. Welcome to being an adult. I can't >> or don't have kids >> or don't or don't have kids. There's so many options. All right. Coming up, former Vice President Kla Harris is reportedly in favor of releasing the hidden 2024 DNC autopsy report. Stay with us.

[00:40:06]Former Vice President Kla Harris has reportedly told donors she has no issue with the DNC releasing an autopsy from her failed 2024 presidential campaign.

[00:40:16]NBC reports that Harris hasn't discussed the report with DNC chair Ken Martin and didn't know he was withholding it. This comes amidst conversations about Harris potentially running again in 2028.

[00:40:27]Reverend Al Sharfton told NBC in a phone interview that quote, "She is being encouraged by a lot of people around her and by a lot of people around the country, adding that he thinks this will impact her decision on whether or not to run."

[00:40:41]Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who served under President Obama, said about the DNC report, quote, "We are all adults. If we can't handle an afteraction report on how we spent 4 billion and lost, then we are all third grade soccer players and get a medal for effort. God help us." End quote.

[00:41:00]>> And don't you think, okay, you of all people know that we need to be strategic here. Yes.

[00:41:05]>> So, there's no point in releasing the entire playbook, but you certainly should fix the plays. I don't know that even Republicans would release the full playbook and say, "Here's everything.

[00:41:14]here's all the ammunition you need to come at us on the next campaign trail because here's the ways that we failed miserably. Is that effective on the campaign trail?

[00:41:21]>> Republicans did that under Ryan Priebus as RNC chair coming out of 2012. Right.

[00:41:26]There was a full autopsy and it was fully released. But of course Kamla wants this all released because it's going to say like opportunities and ways that it wasn't her fault that Democrats lost, right? Like she raised a billion dollars and still ended up in debt after a 107day campaign. And so she's like, "Yeah, there was another $3 billion.

[00:41:44]This is totally not my fault." Yeah, let's read that report, friends. I totally take this as that. But to your strategic question on whether or not they should fully release it. Yeah, you don't want like even when you release a poll sometimes, right? Like if you put that out there, sometimes you're going to kind of keep one slide back or you don't release the cross tabs. You don't give everything to everybody, right? But there's a way to put it out that one gives people information they should because you do want to get information out there to other Democrats, to other races, to other things to be like, here is where we messed up instead of playing hide the ball. Gotcha. And listen, Rahm Emanuel didn't think I'd be saying it.

[00:42:19]Sounds very very with it right now to be like, if we can't accept where we failed, then we all get a participation trophy. Well done. And the reason this is a story is because of Democrats themselves. And that's a big strategy problem. Instead of just either getting ahead of it or putting out some version of it or doing anything, Ken Martin is now getting stories written about him that he wants that people want to oust him. They don't think he's a good fundraiser. They don't think he's a good strategist. And whether or not he's going to put out this report, it's a bad day to be Ken Martin any day in DC, it seems at this point. And this is a self-inflicted injury by Democrats that he could have completely completely not had as a headline, but he's made it an issue because apparently that autopsy must be really bad for Democrats if this is what they're doing.

[00:43:03]>> Well, I've never seen this much speculation around what the party has internally found, >> right? What did you find? We're seeing >> Did they find Jimmy Hoffa? Like, is that what we're hiding now?

[00:43:13]>> And and I think that the like the trickle out information that we're getting because we know that reporters are going to be all over. somebody's going to get their hands on that report, but we already know that private conversations have been explained about how the Democrats were looking amongst themselves and the highest donors to find their own Joe Rogan. And there's been like silly conversations that have trickled out. So, at this point, with no clear strategy, because I think it would be obvious if there was a blanket strategy for Democrats, like these are the three pillars of 2026 and 2028 and then everyone else around that, you can create your own worlds like everyone doesn't have to be mom Donnie. Everyone doesn't have to be Abigail Spanberger, but these are the three pillars we all stick to. But I don't see any agenda at play that's specific. And so that's become problematic, especially when you know like obviously like economy has to be one of them, but not just because Trump failed because what you're going to do differently for it. Like these are some obvious things to me, but it needs to be said very clearly and plainly.

[00:44:01]>> I want to play a sat from or soundbite from Kamla speaking talking about whether or not she might run.

[00:44:07]>> Are you going to run again in 2018?

[00:44:12]>> Listen, I might. I might.

[00:44:15]I'm thinking about it.

[00:44:18]>> So, this is a very favorable crowd.

[00:44:20]National Action Network, as you know, Al Sharpton, a political activist, host on MS Now. Obviously, everyone in the crowd wants Kamla to run and they're in support of that. I did a lens earlier this week about the nuance there. Not that she's underqualified in any way at at all, but it's the fact that she's tethered to Biden in a way that she wasn't able to completely separate on issues that people think the ball >> try >> well and and there's serious issues that are still issues right now. Immigration, the economy, and the way that we support Israel. I mean, these are three issues where she was tethered to Biden and has a distinct break from the Democratic party about what they feel should be next. and there's a distinct break even like there is in the Republican party about what the way forward looks like, but she didn't just say something or pick a side or be specific even when she was at a lenient audience at the view on a lenient crowd. And so I think >> it would behoove her honestly to look at the governor's position, which I know it's too late, so we're talking about past tense. she can't jump into that race, but look at the next few years to maybe let the dust settle on the connection that people put her or the box people put her in with Biden so she can actually run a real race that's not so closely tied to Trump or Biden. Yeah, she hasn't done anything to differentiate herself to your point, right? That easy question on the view which was, you know, where do you disagree with the president? I understand she was the vice president at the time and I can tell you this, Kamla is a terrible candidate by every measurable standard. She's not a good campaer. She's shown that multiple times. That doesn't mean she's not qualified. It does mean she's bad at the campaign trail. She's bad at connecting with people. She's bad at looking authentic. She's bad at giving answers to simple questions like the one on the view where they asked her, "What's the difference?" That's like getting asked in a job interview, "What's your weakness?" And you got to like think of something that actually is a positive to spin it. So, all she had to say was, you know, I agree with the president on infrastructure, but I don't think we go far enough here. All she needed to say was, "I think we've taken a good first step, but I want to do more and I don't think we were aggressive enough." Even that would have been a little bit of a headache headline for the Biden admit to be like, "Oh, she doesn't think you were aggressive enough on rural broadband or whatever her infrastructure choice would be to differentiate herself." But she didn't do anything. She couldn't even think that her name was different than Joe Biden for a moment in that question.

[00:46:36]So, it shows what an inadequate campaigner she is. And that's just one example of it. But now she has an opportunity to try to redefine herself or define herself separate from Biden.

[00:46:46]And she's not doing that. She's still hemming and hawing. She's still giving half jumbled answers. She's still not giving the difference. And if she wants to win, she needs to be a bit stronger.

[00:46:56]And I know that there are plenty of Democrats in the Biden wing of the party who will say, "That's disloyalty. How dare you say things about the president?

[00:47:03]How you can disagree without dis being disagreeable?" I think you and I do that. I think you and I show when we do this show that we don't have to agree on the same things, but we can still get along and still be friends. She could do that too as a Democrat, but she's not politically astute. And it continues to show. And so she's sitting there in a friendly audience where all she had to say was, "I mean, what do you guys think?" Wouldn't that have been a great response instead of her being like, "I'm thinking about it." Because, yeah, we all know you're thinking about it, comma, you're politically ambitious, but she could have made a better moment of it. She just doesn't have good political instincts. and and so I hope she runs.

[00:47:37]Come on in. Come look. The water's fine.

[00:47:39]>> Yeah. I It's It's hard because I think you know her accomplishments and her record and even what she was able to accomplish with the Biden administration in regards to helping out with infrastructure and things for the working class were significant in certain ways, but even the messaging of the Biden and Kla team was not effective. So they weren't even able to communicate the winds well in a moment where the even the economy was bad. But President Trump is trying to communicate the winds. we comb through whether what's the truth and what's the lie, but it still is communication. He's effective ortor. And so I just think that we need to figure out how to uh the Democratic party need to figure out what the next step looks like. So I just think people are looking for something different. Not to say that the future they won't be looking for something that looks more like Kamla when she's detached from Biden a little bit more.

[00:48:22]>> Yeah, maybe that's right.

[00:48:23]>> All right, that does it for us on Rising Live. Look out for more exclusive YouTube content coming your way. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe to The Hills YouTube channel so you never miss any content. And for those of you who like to listen on the go, we're now available anywhere you listen to podcast. We hope to see you next week.

[00:48:38]Happy Mother's Day.