← Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Full Show: NBA Draft analysis, legal commentary on “Diddy” Combs’ federal trial, political discussion with Rep. Ro Khanna.
01:17:04
Loading summary
Transcript122 lines
- [00:00]
Stephen A. Smith
Foreign.
- [00:12]
Brian Windhorst
What'S up, everybody? Welcome to the latest edition of the Stephen A. Smith Show. Coming at you as I love to do at the very least three times a week over the digital airways of YouTube and of course, iHeartRadio. As always, I'd like to pause and take a moment to thank my subscribers and followers for continuing to support the show. The millions of downloads we received courtesy of iheartradio over the last several months, not to mention a subscriber base that is now eclipsed to 1.25 million over the digital airwaves of YouTube. Thank you for the love and support. Keep it coming. And I'm gonna keep on coming to continue to like and follow the show. Just click the bell to get notified for all of our newest content and you too shall consider yourself the latest member of the Stephen A. Smith show family. And while you're doing that, please make sure to pick up a copy of my New York Times best selling book, Straight Shooter, a memoir of second chances and first takes, now in paperback. Just go to straightshooterbook.com to get yourself a copy. Once again, that's straight shooterbook.com to get yourself a copy. I wanted to get started with round one of the NBA DRAF last night that began with a move that surprised absolutely no one, and that is Cooper Flag out of Duke going first overall to the Dallas Mavericks. There's a lot of stuff to get into. Cooper Flag going number one, Dylan Harper going number two. Obviously that was a big, big deal for the San Antonio spurs, along with a bevy of other moves that were made. The New Orleans Pelicans, under the new leadership of Joe Dumars, made a whole bunch of moves, to say the least. The Philadelphia 76ers was supposedly in a pitch. The Phoenix Suns made a deal drafting a big man and then acquiring another big man and Mark Williams from Charlotte. There's so much stuff to get into, and who better to get into it than who I'm about to get into it with it now. Joining me now to discuss the draft and all the other moves teams made in round one last night is NBA senior writer extraordinaire and insider, the one and only Brian Winhorse, right here on the Stephen A. Smith Show. What's up, Wendy? How you doing?
- [02:00]
Ryan Smith
You know, we're in the middle of the most crazy time of the year in the NBA. So teams are changing. We got a new champion. This is, this is in a lot of ways the best time of the year.
- [02:11]
Brian Windhorst
Well, listen, you look a little bit sleepy. I'm not going to knock you for that, but forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you because you know how exhausted I am. I could tell you that much. But we are here. Let's get, let's get right to it. Wendy. Let's begin with Cooper Flag going to the Dallas Mavericks. What does this mean for the team in the Western Conference in your estimation?
- [02:29]
Ryan Smith
You know, I, I really feel like this was such an incredible turn of events. It is very rare that we see a team this established get a. This good in the draft. I don't know if it's quite Tim Duncan going to the spurs, but it's possible we could look back and compare it to that because not only is Cooper Flagg a tremendous talent, but he is the perfect modern player. And what I mean by that is he has great size, he can play multiple different positions. And one of the things that teams want today is they want a big who can take the ball off the backboard and bring it up the court, start the offense so they can flow into their offense. Draymond Green pretty much redefined that role. Everybody's trying to do it, you know. Alperin Shangoon, for example, is a guy who's become an All Star doing stuff like that. Jokic has become a three time MVP doing stuff like that. Cooper Flag is not a center, but he can do that. So not only do you have a player who's perfectly modern, he also wants to defend the hardest thing. And Stephen A. You know this from when young players tends to be the more talented they are, the less they care about defense. They have to come in the NBA and learn defense. This guy wants to defend. Even when I first watched him playing in high school, I noticed that he really cares on the defensive end of the ball. And having that coming into the league is very important. And then third, you look at this team, they have hall of Famers at center and point guard. He comes in as a versatile wing combo forward, whatever you want to call him, he fits into what they have. Like, it'd be one thing if he, he was duplicating a position. When Kyrie Irving is healthy, he fits in there. And so you said the other day that you thought that Dallas could be the biggest challenger to Oklahoma City in the West. Obviously that comes along with the asterisks of Kyrie because we know that you don't just spring back off of a, off of an ACL when you're ready to play, that you're the same player. But that is not the hottest take you've ever had. We'll just. We'll just leave it at that.
- [04:40]
Brian Windhorst
You know, there are people out there that are being critical of Cooper Flag from this perspective. And I see. No, I don't understand it because I think the kid is a stud. There's only four freshmen in the history of college basketball that have been named national player of the year. He's obviously one of them. But I'm looking at this kid right now and I love what he brings to the table. But he's not the Grady. Even though he got, he shot 38% from three point range. He's not a marksman per se. And so when people look at him, obviously he's talented, he's athletic, he's gifted as a basketball player, and he also happens to be white. They think about Larry Bird and then that's a. That's. That's just F for the critics to say, no way in hell. He ain't that dude. I don't think he's a Larry Bird type either, because he's not that kind of scorer. But I do think he's gifted enough to be whatever the hell he wants to be. Considering the fact that he's gifted as he is at this age of 18.
- [05:32]
Ryan Smith
I agree. If you're expecting him to score 25, 28 points a game coming out of the gate, that's not going to happen. Not only that, he's got other scorers on his team and we haven't talked about Klay Thompson at all. I mean, Klay Thompson's the shooter on that roster. So look, it's even possible, Stephen A. That he may not even win Rookie of the Year. You know, they're, you know, Ace Bailey or somebody else, you know, you know, may get on a team where he might average 28 points, 25 points and put up huge numbers. And you might see Cooper Flag because of the other guys on his team and because his role is not be a high score in a lot of way. A lot of times that defines what people think of rookies is how much they score. So, yeah, if you're going to hold them to the standard that he's going to shoot the ball like Larry Bird and, and create and have all that offensive versatility, you are probably going to be underwhelmed. But in terms of his overall impact on the game, I mean, he has the potential. I mean, look, all I'll say is this. As you know, it is very rare for rookies to drive winning LeBron didn't make. I mean, LeBron instantly made the Cavs better, but he didn't make the playoffs till his third year. Luka Doncic, again, one of the biggest impact players. He didn't make the playoffs, I think, until his third year. Kevin Durant, he didn't make the playoffs, I think, until his third year. You know, you can come in and help your team, but it, you know, the idea that you're going to come in and drive winning from day one, that doesn't happen with rookies. I believe this player on this team, he can help drive winning, and that should be what the standard is more than anything.
- [07:02]
Brian Windhorst
Let's go to the number two pick, Dylan Harper. I know the spurs had a couple of picks in the first round. They picked Carter Bryant with the 14th pick. But Dylan Harper, is he that good? I think he is. I think he's talented. I think that what I'm seeing from the San Antonio spurs is that they're a team that's trying to emulate the Oklahoma City Thunder to, to some degree in terms of having players that are interchangeable parts, players capable of playing multiple positions. I view Dylan Harper as one of those dudes that's versatile enough to make some noise at either God spot. Talk to me about your thoughts about that pick.
- [07:37]
Ryan Smith
Yeah, so the spurs definitely are going to have a little bit of a crowded backcourt here because they, they heavily invest in Deer and Fox. They, they traded three first round picks for him, of course, and I believe are going to extend, yeah, they're going to extend him to the tune of $200 million in the next few weeks. They've obviously got Stefan Castle, who's the reigning Rookie of the Year, who's a combo guard. They've got Devin Vassell, who they've invested heavily. You know, right now he's actually their highest paid player. And then now they've drafted Dylan Harper. Now you can say, I don't know if all those guys are going to stay. And I mean, already it looks like there's no room for Chris Paul. You know, I don't know where Chris Paul's going to end up. He's actually going to be one of the more interesting free agents. They do have a little bit of a, of a crowded backcourt there, but they're going to be big into positional versatility. If you listen to Brian Wright, their general manager last night, he addressed this question and he said, yeah, if you look at the game traditionally, we have too many guards. If you look at the game in the modern era, in the era where there's you know, you're, you're putting basketball players on the court and picking out matchups. We like where we're at. And by the way, it helps when you have a center in Victor Wembanyama who can play like a wing and who can, you know, bring the ball to court as well and create a little bit offensively. So I do think there could be some, some moments there. I don't think he's an ideal fit, but one thing that I know, talking to scouts from a talent standpoint, this was in a lot of ways a two player draft. Now, just because people think that in June of 2025 doesn't mean that's the reality, that it'll look like a year or four years from now. But a lot of people felt that it was Cooper, it was Harper, and then there was a golf with everybody else. And so the spurs with the number two pick took the most talented player and with where they're at and they're building, they can't be drafted for fit. When you have the number two pick, you take the most talented player and you figure out the fit later. And that's probably what they're going to do.
- [09:36]
Brian Windhorst
You know, one of the things that one of the people that was making noise was this kid, Ace Bailey, who was considered one of the top three talents in the draft, but because he had refused to be interviewed or work out for several teams, you know, several, you know, couple of teams passed on him before he was taken. We know that the kid is good, is gifted and what have you. My position was no one, anybody could, could be justified in taking him except the Philadelphia 76ers. After what happened with Ben Simmons, you can't take a chance on an unknown at the number three pick. If you're the Philadelphia 76ers, that is the one team that did not have that latitude. And sure enough, they were smart enough not to do it. And they took this kid Edgecomb, you know, and so I'm looking at him and I'm saying, okay, I believe in this kid and his potential. This K out of Baila, shooting guard out of Baylor. What were your thoughts about how the Sixers handled their draft?
- [10:26]
Ryan Smith
Yeah, so, I mean, Daryl Morey said last night after the draft, he said, we, he thinks that they have one of the best backcourts in the NBA. Now when you look or, you know, not just starting, but their whole across. So you think about Tyrese Maxey, you think about Paul George, you think about Jared McCain, their first round pick last year who was playing Like a rookie of the year candidate until he hurt his knee. And you look at Edgecombe, who they've now drafted. You know, the thing about Edgecombe that, you know, where I got positive feedback was, you know, he played for the Baja Manian national team last year with a bunch of NBA guys, with deandre Ayton, with Buddy Heel, with Klay Thompson. And like, there were stretches of games where he was the best player on the court. And that was against, you know, top teams. I mean, they almost qualified for the Olympics. They got, I think, to the championship game of their regional to try to qualify for the Olympics. And so there's reason to believe in him. They obviously were on the fence about Ace Bailey, Stephen A. Because they really wanted to bring Ace Bailey in for a workout. That was the only workout that base that Bailey scheduled, of course, didn't matter because he canceled it. And so, you know, I think the most relevant thing that Daryl Morey said last night after the game or after the draft was that they expect Joel Embiid to be ready by training camp. Now, before. Before I even see your face on this, expecting Joel Embiid to be ready is a statement that we have heard before, but we haven't really had any update at all after his knee surgery. So that was at least some sort of update.
- [11:59]
Stephen A. Smith
Yeah.
- [12:00]
Ryan Smith
And here's the other thing. The Philly could have traded this pick, okay? Like, there was definite interest in moving up into this spot either for Bailey or somebody else. But with what's happened to Philly with trading picks, they don't. They don't operate in a vacuum.
- [12:17]
Brian Windhorst
Don't take the chance, you know, so.
- [12:20]
Ryan Smith
Edgecombe was probably the safer pick when it comes to Bailey. Utah, they have probably bottom three overall talent in the league, and they're in Salt Lake City. They cannot afford to worry about positional fit or, or whether or not a player wants to be in Utah. If you wait for players who announced they want to be in Utah, you're not going to feel the team. Okay? Let's just be honest. I live in the Midwest. I'm not throwing stones. They had to do what they had to do.
- [12:50]
Brian Windhorst
Hold that thought. Wendy. Hang on just one second. Got some bills to pay with prospects. We'll be right back. Hold on for one second. All right, everybody, listen up. With all the big time sports action that's happening each and every single day, the Stephen A. Smith show wants to make sure you are taking advantage of it all. That's why we've partnered with prize picks. The best place to Win cash while watching sports. The app is really easy to use. You know, just pick more or less on a few player stats and you can win up to 2000 times your cash on a single lineup. Best of all, Prize Picks will give you fifty dollars in lineups when you play your first five dollar lineup, win or lose, you'll get fifty bucks in lineups. Just use promo code SAS and download Prize Picks now. Again, download the app and use code SAS to get $50 in lineups instantly. After your first $5 lineup prize picks. Hey, hey. Run your game today. I'll give you my picks for UFC317 taking place this weekend. Saturday night, Felipe Lima will take on Peyton Talbert and Joshua Van will face Brandon Royval. And Sunday night, Charles Oliveira will face off against Ilia Temporia. So let's get to it. First up, will Felipe Lima have more or less than 49 and a half significant strikes? I'm going to go with less. For some reason, I just think that this fight is going to get in quickly. Ain't gonna have time to get in 49 and a half strikes. I'm gonna go with less on this one. Next, will Joshua Van have more or less than 90.5 significant strikes? I'm going with more on this one. I think the fight will go longer. I think Van's gonna be swinging punches and I think he'll have more than the 90. And finally, will Charles Oliveira have more or less than 31 and a half significant strikes? I'm going to go with more because I love that brother and what he brings to the table. I've seen him with some very big fights. I've seen him overcome a lot of odds. He's the real deal, make no mistake about it. He's got a tough one here, he's got a tough one here, but nevertheless, I think he can handle it. So guess what? That's less for Felipe Lima, more for Joshua Van, and more for Charles Oliveira. Joining me today is Prize Picks, partner. Book it with Trent. Trent, welcome back to the show. You know you're always welcome, buddy. Appreciate you, man. How you doing?
- [14:59]
Trent
I'm feeling great. Stephen A. How are you doing today?
- [15:02]
Brian Windhorst
I'm doing all right, man. It's good to see you. Now, let's get right to it. I hear you're a die hard OkC Thunder fan, so congratulations in that and you were courtside throughout the playoffs, including for game seven of the finals. Talk to me about how exciting that was and whether or not you got yourself into anything. Man.
- [15:18]
Trent
Talk to me about that it was an incredible experience. Yeah. I have been a die hard okc fan since the jump from 08, when they moved from Seattle to okc. My whole family's here. I've got some family ties within the organization as well. That's where my fandom comes from. But it was an insane experience being on the floor for Games five and Game seven. And, you know, there might have been a few things exchanged between me and some Pacers players throughout. Throughout my experience in Game five and seven, and it was. It was crazy. Honestly, I was pretty shocked at how easily I was in some of their heads without really saying much. But I don't want to take any credit for, you know, any struggles they had offensively, but I think I definitely was in their head quite a bit. A lot more than some people think. I think Obi Toppin, James Johnson, and Tyrese Halberton certainly did not enjoy my presence on the floor in both those games, and. And they definitely let me know that. But I hope they all know that I respect all of them entirely, and it's all just part of the game. There's no bad blood there. I know me and James Johnson had a pretty big skirmish there in Game five, and then we ended up squashing the team a little bit in Game seven.
- [16:40]
Brian Windhorst
Yeah, you hold it. You know who James Johnson is, right? You. You know who that brother is. You know he's a black. And most athletes, you. That's the dude you decided to mess with. Hundred. Come on now.
- [16:53]
Trent
It was completely unintentional. I said, what happened was Game five, the anthem had just concluded, and Hal Burton's within arm's reach of me, and I said some things to him I probably shouldn't have said. I said, you're a B word. I said it twice. And he did not like that.
- [17:10]
Brian Windhorst
Not nice.
- [17:11]
Trent
And James Johnson heard, and he started walking straight towards me, like, ready to start throwing hands. It looked like he wasn't obviously gonna do that, but. And then the security guards came in and had to, you know, let me know that if I do this again, I'm gonna be escorted out. And so I was on my best behavior for Game 7, did nothing, but they came ready to churn, and I just had to sit there and take it. But they continued to chirp all of Game seven. I was shocked. Even with four minutes left. Obi Toppins running up and down the floor saying, f you. F you. And I'm like, all right, dude, you have game seven to go. Win right now. Come on.
- [17:49]
Brian Windhorst
Wow. Wow. Okay. Were you at the championship parade.
- [17:53]
Trent
I was at the parade. I actually just got back from raising canes with Alex Caruso serving chicken nuggets to some fans, which was an awesome experience, but I was at the parade. It was really hot, but it was. I mean, this is. This means so much to the city of Oklahoma. It's more than just a championship. This is like all they have here, you know, besides OU football. It's. It's OKC basketball. And they cherish it so much. And it's just really great to finally bring one home because it's been a long time coming.
- [18:26]
Brian Windhorst
It's been a long time coming, but y' all deserve it. And guess what? Y' all ain't going anywhere because you got about 10 or 11 picks over the next few years and you still got a crew, so you ain't going anywhere. But now that the basketball season's over, what do you think about the upcoming football season? What are your picks for the NFL season? Long squares on prospects, to be specific.
- [18:43]
Trent
Oh, yeah. If you, if you remember, I smacked mine last year, five for five and won a hundred K. And so I am expected to run it back this year. And I got to get in the lab and get surgical. But a couple that I'm looking at. I don't know how you're going to feel about it, but I think Caleb Williams could have a year with this new offensive coordinator. I think he's gonna be slinging rock. They've got a couple new weapons.
- [19:10]
Brian Windhorst
What do you think about Caleb?
- [19:11]
Trent
You do?
- [19:12]
Brian Windhorst
I like Caleb Williams. Listen, the brother got slaughtered last year, okay? He had, I think, got sacked like 68 times. I mean, I mean, when you think about it, I mean, it was like 16 or 17 more than anybody else in the National Football League. He was getting slaughtered last year and he stood in there and he took it. I think that he has a tremendous future. I'm a big fan of Caleb Williams.
- [19:32]
Trent
I love to hear that. I think he's due for a huge year. I mean, if you look at his stats last year, despite the record, he was still slinging rock quite, quite a lot. And I think with Ben Johnson under, taking things over on offense is going to just do wonders for him. So I'm. I'm looking at him. I'm keeping my eye on him through camp. And another one that I want to bring up to you is Trey McBride's touchdowns. If you remember, he didn't have a touchdown until week 17 last year. Zero the entire season. And then the last game of the year, they finally fed him and got him one. But he's way too good of a tight end to go that long without a touchdown. And I think this year he's going to, he's going to shock a lot of people and he's going to get that number way more than I think four and a half. Four and a half is what it's at right now. But yeah, that's, that's the, that's another square I'm looking at.
- [20:27]
Brian Windhorst
Well, listen, man, Trent, it's good to see you, my man. I'm gonna have some time off this summer and all of that stuff. I want you to have a great summer. I'm looking forward to this NFL season. It was a great finish to the NBA season because we had a great NBA finals. We can't slash. I mean, okc, Indianapolis, we expected it to be two small market teams. The ratings didn't start off great or whatever because people are looking at it that way. But it turned be a big time NBA final series and I give both teams props for giving that to us. And now I'm looking forward to the NFL season, man. So you take it easy, man. And I look forward to talking to you down the line. All right. You take care of yourself.
- [21:01]
Trent
Of course. You too. Stephen A. We'll be seeing.
- [21:04]
Brian Windhorst
Book it with Trent. That's who he is. That's who he is. Book it with him. You saw him talk about how he won $100,000 last year, right? I'm listening to somebody that wins $100,000. I'm going to listen to him. You should too. Listen. And I got no problem with what you taught. Did Danny angel and obviously his son know what they're doing? Ace Bailey and Walter Clayton Jr. When the way that I saw Walter Clayton Jr. Played during the NCAA tournament and win the national lead in Florida to national championship. I like what they doing. I'm a big fan of Jeremiah Fierce out of Oklahoma. I love the fact that the Pelicans pick somebody like him up. I think that he has Kyrie Irving potential. He's got to develop a shot, but my Lord, that brother can handle the rock. And he's spectacular open court. I love watching him play. Let me transition to the Pelicans since I brought them up. And I want to play this sound for you from Bill Simmons because Bill Simmons was on a podcast and he was talking about the Pelicans and what the Pelicans elected to do with, with. With, you know, moving up, you know, trading up to get this kid Queen out of Maryland and What have you with Atlanta? I mean, Joe Dumas is getting criticized heavily about making this decision. I want you to listen to what Bill Simmons had to say and I want you to react to that. Play this for me, guys.
- [22:24]
Bill Simmons
This was when I lost my mind. I think I blacked out. I'm so glad the NBA can still give us these. New Orleans trades up 10 spots so they could take Derek Queen and they give up their unprotected 2026 first round pick. Swap that they have with Milwaukee where they have the favorable. Whatever the better pick is, they keep. They send that to Atlanta, who had to be deliriously happy. Like we only have to move down 10 spots and we get an unprotected. This was one of the five dumbest trades of this decade. I was speechless. I just can't believe it. And who is it? It's our guy, Joe Dumars. And now he just traded away their unprotected 2026 pick house. They're in the West. What the fuck does he think is going to happen next year?
- [23:10]
Ryan Smith
See?
- [23:10]
Bill Simmons
Think they're going to be a 5 seed?
- [23:12]
Brian Windhorst
What is he doing?
- [23:13]
Bill Simmons
They should have shown the Hawks war room. As guys are taking their shirts off doing this and fucking popping champagne on each other, they might have the championship belt now. A biggest mess of a team. I think this is it. I think giving away next year's first round pick and making it unprotected. I think they grabbed the belt.
- [23:30]
Brian Windhorst
Before you comment, Wendy, I will tell you this. It was risky, no doubt. And Bill Simmons certainly, certainly was making some sense. I like Queen because I watched him during the NCAA tournament, didn't mind, didn't pay much attention to the fact that the Pelicans had moved up to get him. That's a good point. Because you're in the west, what do you think you're gonna do next year? I think it was insurance in case Zion Williamson goes out, even though he's not the player that Zion Williamson is. I think it was insurance in that regard. But I also want to say this. This is the same Joe Dumas. Yes, he made a huge, huge mistake by, by not drafting Carmelo Anthony years ago because he had Tayshawn Prince at that small forward spot and, and, and. And drafted someone else number two. But he did go to six conference fights, six consecutive conference finals, back to back NBA finals appearances and won a championship. That's the same Jew Joe Dumas we're talking about here. So I just wanted to throw that out before I let you comment about the decision that Joe Dumas had to make. What could you tell us about this decision?
- [24:35]
Ryan Smith
Yeah, let's draw a line here on the Pelicans on one side. Let's point out that they walk away from this draft with Jeremiah Fears and Derrick Queen. From a, from a talent standpoint, any team would be happy with that. And I think you have to evaluate that as their draft night. Where people are getting on them is the price that they paid to move up from the 23rd pick to the 13th pick and specifically that it gives the Hawks an opportunity to either have the Bucks pick next year, which I'm not sure what the Bucks are going to look like right now. Next year maybe there'll be a playoff team. I don't know what they're going to look like. And the Pelicans, who have not been a reliable playoff team in the west and the Western Conference is, is a, is a beast. So I'm, I'm not going to lie to you, Stephen A. I had executives text me today saying that this was the worst draft day trade since Luka Doncic.
- [25:28]
Ro Khanna
So.
- [25:29]
Ryan Smith
But that's looking at the value of the trade. That's not looking at the value of the player. What you are seeing here, people are talking about Joe Dumars. What you're seeing here right now is the imprint of Troy Weaver. Troy Weaver, who was the general manager in Detroit last year. He spent the year working with the Wizards and he has been hired to be Joe Dumars right hand man. Look at what they've done the last two, two days. They traded, they did a deal with the Wizards where they traded for Jordan Pool.
- [25:57]
Brian Windhorst
Right.
- [25:58]
Ryan Smith
You don't think they have insight into Jordan Pool? Troy Weaver was there every day. Okay. The second thing is Troy Weaver is from Washington D.C. in fact, it was Troy Weaver that recruited Carmelo Anthony to Syracuse all those years ago. He lives in Washington D.C. troy Weaver's son works for the University of Maryland program. Him. Who knows how many games Detroit Weaver was at to see Derek Queen. I'm not saying Joe Dumars wasn't in love with their Queen, but this is Troy Weaver who, yeah, he had some mistakes in Detroit, but he also built the bones of that team that has now taken off and he also helped build the bones of the first contending team that they've had in Oklahoma City. So I think it's, it's both fair to say they walked out of this draft with a great two picks in the top in the lottery and yet also left themselves exposed to next season. They are now going to play next season with a little bit of a cloud hanging over their head because if they have a bad year, if Zion gets hurt again and misses a bunch of games and they end up back in the lottery, they are in big trouble of having egg on their face. But let's, let's first watch Derek Queen before we admit the eggs. Just try to, you know, brand this as a terrible decision.
- [27:11]
Brian Windhorst
Totally fair. I only got a couple of minutes left. Wendy. Let's get right to it. Winners and losers in this draft. Give me your winners and then give me your losers.
- [27:19]
Ryan Smith
You mentioned the spurs, the wing that they drafted, Carter Bryant. Like I, I am not a draft expert but I have people that are who have compared him to OG Anunoby. So you get Dylan Harper and that type of 3 and D wing defender which are always in in vital demand in the NBA. I think they have to feel good about themselves. I think the Hawks feel good about themselves. Number one. Again, I am not a draft expert. I'm not going to sit here and give you the finer points of Asa Newell's game but nobody that I saw had him outside the top 20. A lot of people had him inside the top 15. They get him a 23 while also getting this valuable asset from the Pelicans. A day after they got Chris Eps Porzingis for a song. They traded a pick to get him. That's why I included in the draft and they have a $20 million trade exception that they're going hunting for. I think the Hawks in the Eastern Conference where we're seeing some teams have to take a step back due to injuries are potentially in the process of taking a step forward. So the Hawks and, and the, and the spurs to me and also I'm going to give the Jazz some credit here. You mentioned Walter Clayton. I can't compare Walter Clayton to the other guys taken around him. I'm not that kind of expert but I watched NCAA tournament and I'd want that guy on my team. They liked him.
- [28:40]
Stephen A. Smith
Steve.
- [28:40]
Brian Windhorst
That's right.
- [28:41]
Ryan Smith
They moved up three spots to get him. They went into the draft saying we want Walter Clayton and obviously Ace Bailey is one of the most talented players in the draft. Utah is got. They are bereft of impact players and they drafted two guys with the potential to be impacts in different ways. So I think I, I would say Utah had a good night as well.
- [29:01]
Brian Windhorst
Last question Phoenix. Your thoughts about them is one thing to get to to draft this malawich out of Duke who I like. I love that pick by Phoenix. So I thought that was good. Giving up a first round pick for Mark Williams who failed the physical supposedly when the Lakers had traded Dalton Connect and a few other assets in order to acquire him. Giving up a number one pick although it's in 2029 and it'll probably be a lower first round pick in all likelihood at least that's Phoenix's thinking. I, I, I, I, I found myself a bit befuddled by that. Because you traded away Kevin Durant in a quest to get assets and you're looking to to get assets because of the assets that you gave away over the last few years. I didn't think that was necessary. Last quick comment. What are your thoughts about Phoenix and what they did?
- [29:49]
Ryan Smith
Yeah, I mean it's almost like what do they know that the Lakers don't about Mark Williams because they actually gave two first round picks. They gave the 29th pick in last night's draft and the 202029 pick. 29. Not super duper valuable but nonetheless I will say this Phoenix because they don't control their draft. They have to compete. They have to put the gas down. They can't tank and they've got Devin Booker and everything like that. So I understand the concept of drafting a guy who can be your starting center today and then drafting a player in Kaman Maliwatch who is probably going to be a year or two away from being ready to be your starting center if things go well. I get that concept. But they did kind of pay. In fact they paid more. Looking at it a certain way, they kind of paid more than the Lakers did. The Lakers traded a pick and a swap. They traded two firsts, albeit one of the first was late. So they have put themselves in a position where Mark Williams better pass that physical and Mark Williams better come in and help them. It was a little bit curious but people are acting like it's strange to get two centers. I get that now you watch is not ready to play right now but the Suns aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt. That's the bottom line.
- [31:03]
Brian Windhorst
One and only Brian Windows Appreciate the great work all year my man. You take it easy, get some time off. It's well deserved but I'm sure we'll be talking to each other in the next few days and weeks considering all its expected to go on in the NBA over the next couple few days or so. So you take it easy.
- [31:17]
Ryan Smith
All right, Forward to it and I enjoyed spending so much time with you during the playoffs.
- [31:21]
Brian Windhorst
Take it easy Brian. We'll talk later buddy. Coming up, will a political stunner in New York City breathe life into the Democratic Party for the midterms? I'll get into that and more with California representative Ro Khanna straight ahead. But first, closing arguments have begun in a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial for Sean Diddy Combs. Legal analyst Ryan Smith joins me next to break down exactly what the jury needs to consider. It's a lot of stuff going on with P. Diddy, by the way. I'm thinking he might get off. I'm serious. I'm serious. Gonna talk about that. That's up next right here on the Stephen A. Smith show. Don't go away. All right, everybody, listen up. With all the big time sports action that's happening each and every day, the Stephen A. Smith show wants to make sure you are taking advantage of it all. That's why we partnered with Prize Picks the best place to win cash while watching sports. The app is really easy to use, you know, to create a lineup. All you have to do is pick more or less on a few player stats, choose from any of your favorite players all in the same entry. Then sit back and watch. The list is endless. You can play prize picks in over 40 states, including California and Texas. Best of all, prize picks will give you fifty dollars in lineups when you play your first five dollar lineup, win or lose, you'll get fifty bucks in lineups. Just use promo code SAS and download prize picks now. Again, download the app and use code SAS to get $50 in lineups instantly after your first five dollar lineup prize picks. Hey, hey, run your game. Welcome back to Stephen A. Smith show. Now let's get to the latest on the Sean Diddy Combs federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York City. After six weeks of testimony, the government today has started to present closing arguments in their case against the music mogul. The feds characterized Combs as the leader of a criminal enterprise. And that enterprise serviced Combs personal desires through a pattern of, quote, violence, coercion and manipulation, end quote. In addition to that, the feds allege Combs committed several crimes that include kidnapping, arson, forced labor, bribery and sex trafficking. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted on all counts, he could face up to life in prison. Joining me now to break it all down as an attorney and legal analyst extraordinaire for ABC News. You can also catch him on SportsCenter hosting SportsCenter on ESPN. Please welcome back to the show the one and only Ryan Smith. What's going on Ryan, how are you doing, man?
- [34:00]
Stephen A. Smith
I'm good, Stephen. How you doing?
- [34:03]
Brian Windhorst
I'm tired as hell, but it's always good talking to you, my brother. I've been working like crazy for the last three months, but I'm here. Let's get started with the news yesterday that the Feds were withdrawing some of the criminal allegations against Combs ahead of closing arguments today. The move was made as part of an effort to, quote, unquote, streamline instructions to the jury. Break this down for us, please. What exactly happened there and what does it mean?
- [34:26]
Stephen A. Smith
They are saying they're not going to argue the attempted arson and the attempted kidnapping parts of this case. Now, I want to specify this does not apply to the arson that's being alleged against Kid Cudi's car. So that's one that I think a lot of people know about, that they've heard about, that's attracted a lot of attention. That's still going to be part of what they're arguing, but what they're trying to do. This kind of, to me relates more to the RICO case than anything else. In a RICO case, which is the big charge against Sean Diddy Combs, you get to bring in all this evidence, all this information. You're trying to basically say Diddy and somebody else, or other people, maybe his entourage, other people in his orbit got together, committed two crimes, at least two crimes in a 10 year period in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. But the problem is they've offered so much information in this thing that they have to try to streamline things for the jury. They have to. This is why in this kind of case, closing argument becomes everything. Because you have to take all this evidence, all this information, all these witnesses, and you got to show that rico, you've got to show that he others got together, they did these two crimes or more in this period of time. But after you start throwing in attempted arson, attempted kidnapping, and you don't think you have a good case against that, you run the risk of the jury saying, well, I don't believe those things, so I don't believe the whole thing. Instead, they're focusing a lot on bribery. As some of the crimes committed. They're going to probably talk about Kid Cudi's car. They're talking about things like drugs and things like that. All these things are the crimes they're saying are part of RICO are part of the sex trafficking. And they're doing this so that jury of eight men and four women ages 30 to 74, don't get confused in all this information.
- [36:05]
Brian Windhorst
Yeah, but you say they're doing it not to get confused. What about those who would argue that they're trying to modify their allegations and the accusations against Sean Diddy comes because they didn't make a strong enough case and now they're trying to cover themselves? What about those who believe that, you.
- [36:20]
Stephen A. Smith
Know, it's not a bad argument because in some ways you got to wonder if somebody on that it only takes one. I always want to say that it only takes one because this decision has to be unanimous. Only takes one juror to say, I'm not buying something here. I don't believe this. I see reasonable doubt. And you could argue that maybe a juror will look at this and say, well, what about this thing that I thought I heard about an attempted arson or kidnapping? Now, what the prosecution is trying to do is trying to say, that's not going to be part of the instruction. So you're not even supposed to think about that stuff. But we can't control human nature of what they might have heard. I do understand people saying, hey, they didn't prove something here, so they're trying to cover themselves. But this does happen in cases. Sometimes you present a lot in a case. You're trying to determine what is part of the case, especially as you're trying to tie it up in closing arguments, and you try to get in the instructions, hey, tell the jury not to consider these things because this is not part of what we're trying to do. And Stephen, A. The flip side of I think people trying to criticize the prosecution on this is the fact that the prosecution is in there right now saying there are a whole host of crimes that were a part of the criminal enterprise. We don't need those two because we got scores of others that did. He did here. And so that, to me, says the prosecutor, is just trying to say we don't have to consider everything we've talked about, but we have a lot of stuff that he did wrong that's criminal, that we can still convict him on. And jury, you should look at that.
- [37:42]
Brian Windhorst
But, Ryan, what really, really resonates with me, man, is that it's been six weeks of testimony, and then the defense has its turn and they don't put on a single witness. It's almost like they're saying, we ain't worried about this. This is nothing. They have no case against us. Why should we even waste our time? That's how they're coming across right now, Ryan.
- [38:04]
Stephen A. Smith
It's not a bad. It's not A good sign for the prosecutors. And in some ways this is something I love talking about when you talk about juries. I think sometimes people look at that and they say, well, that's a problem for the defense. They got to put somebody on. They put Diddy on first of all. The last thing you want to do is put him on the stand. That's a last ditch effort. We have no chance. We got to go for this. And that's not where they are right now. But more than that, you're right, Stephen A. They're trying to portray to the jury, we got this. There is nothing to see here. And we're going to show you that in our closing arguments. You know what I found interesting? The thing they did present in the 23 or so minutes they had was the loving text messages between Cassie and Diddy. That's the defense trying to restate one very important thing. All of the, in all of this consent. That's the defense's whole case consent. Yes, he might be a bad man. Yes, you might think the freak offs are terrible. Yes, you might even think he's an abusive man. But are these consensual relationships, say for example, the sex trafficking, the whole idea that Jane and Cassie were compelled to engage in commercial sex acts under fear of horse or coercion, they're going to undermine that, the defense will, by saying, look at these loving text messages. Look at how these women wanted to do this.
- [39:16]
Brian Windhorst
Hold it.
- [39:16]
Stephen A. Smith
So go ahead.
- [39:17]
Brian Windhorst
It's not just the loving text messages. Ryan, am I wrong when I say I could have sworn I've seen where there were freak offs that occurred without him by those two, Jane and Cassie. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong about Cassie or Jane, please correct me right here on camera. My understanding is that every feet freak off didn't involve P. Diddy. It involved them doing it on their own with others of their own volition, not forced at all. Am I correct?
- [39:46]
Stephen A. Smith
I think you're right about that. But here's the thing. The prosecution even tried to touch on that in their closing arguments by saying you don't have to believe that he orchestrated and did something wrong. In every freak off, all you got to believe is it happened once. That's it for the sex trafficking. All you gotta believe is it happened once. No, it's true.
- [40:03]
Brian Windhorst
So another one. Hold on, Ryan. Excuse me for interrupted. So you're trying to tell me that if on their own they engaged in several freak offs, but then there was one that he was involved in that they could literally try to instruct the jury, pay attention to the one, not the others that you did of your own volition.
- [40:27]
Stephen A. Smith
No, they're saying this here. I get what you're saying, but here's what I'm saying. They're trying to show the jury, they're trying to show the jury that this happened over and over again. These women were forced in some ways to be a part of this and that all of these things show what he was doing all along. And what they're trying to show to the jury though, is maybe something that you're reflecting a good point. You're reflecting the point of somebody might look at one of these freak offs and say, where's Diddy in all this. They even in their closing arguments said, you don't have to believe that every single freak off was him threatening violence or coercion. Just once, just once, either to Cassie or Jane, that is sex trafficking because it's an act of sex trafficking. It's an act of the predicate offensive sex trafficking they're trying to forward here. So I get your point, but they're trying to battle that point as we speak in the courtroom by saying, we offered all this evidence, we offered all this evidence to show you the world that he created in this criminal enterprise that he was in charge of. But you don't have to believe that every single moment he was threatening violence, every single moment he was threatening coercion. It can be once, it can be twice. And if you see that, you have to convict him. But your point is, what about the ones the twice?
- [41:40]
Brian Windhorst
What about the once or twice or five times or ten times they did it on there. Oh, listen, I'm not trying to get him off. I got no, I got nothing in this game.
- [41:48]
Stephen A. Smith
Game.
- [41:49]
Brian Windhorst
If he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's innocent, he's innocent. I don't know. I know what I saw in that video with him hitting Cassie. Ain't no getting around that he can't come back from that. But anything else involving sex trafficking and racketeering, I'm in no position to judge him. But what I'm saying is not only have we heard testimony about them having freak offs without him, we even saw or heard of them having their preference about who was going to be involved in the freak offs. So all of that points to consensual more so than anything else, wouldn't you say, Ryan?
- [42:24]
Stephen A. Smith
The problem is, in some ways, yes, and let me touch on reasonable doubt in that. But what they're saying is think about the rest of the testimony with Cassie, the rest of the testimony with Jane, because that was part of what the defense pushed back on when they were both on the stand and they both mentioned, I felt like this would happen if I didn't do these things. Jane even mentioned the point of, hey, if I didn't get to choose the escorts, if I'm going to be put in this horrible situation that I'm coerced to be in, at least I want to have a say on who I have to have sex with. And so that's the situation they're trying to build out here. But what I like about what you're saying, Stephen A. Is you are channeling one of those eight men and four women possibly in that jury box. And I say this again, the ages are 30 to 74. I say that because you never can really account for how that wide range of ages might look at this thing. They might look at that and say exactly what you're saying. Well, wait a second. They were setting up some of these things. Well, wait a second. I didn't see Diddy in all of this. And if just one has reasonable doubt, you lose that conviction. I think that's the risk that the prosecution ran in a case like this. And I think it's the problem with a RICO case. You're bringing all this evidence, but if all of the evidence doesn't necessarily point to what you're trying to prove, it.
- [43:33]
Brian Windhorst
Can be a problem as it pertains to jury selection. When you talk about the wide range, 30 to 70, 74, who does that favor? The defense or the prosecution? Having a wide range in a jury? Because again, all it takes is one. Right? So chances are from 30 to 74, cats are going to think differently. And if they're going to think differently and all it takes is one, it would seem to me that a jury saw, you know, ranging with that ranging that wide would benefit the defense.
- [44:03]
Stephen A. Smith
I would say this. If the prosecution can't do a fantastic job of tying all this together and making it crystal clear to everybody in that courtroom, yes, he ran this enterprise. Yes, he and others got together and did these criminal acts over this 10 year period in furtherance of the enterprise for Rico, at least the sex trafficking, the transportation of prostitution, that seems like they can get a conviction there. But unless they can do that, clearly it favors the defense. Why? Because the defense looks at this jury and they see one person they think might be favorable and they just talk to that person. Person. Or talk to those two people, or talk to those Three people. You don't look at a closing argument in a case like this with that wide range. And the wide range isn't uncommon for cases like this. But what I'm saying is for defense attorneys, you look at a case like this and you say, I only got to convince one. I don't have to convince all of them. All I got to do is convince one strongly. Who can go in that jury room and say, you guys, I see what you're saying, but I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it. And if you can get somebody to do that, that then you win. I think that favors the defense unless the prosecution can do a stellar job.
- [45:08]
Brian Windhorst
Let's get down to it. When it comes to you, Ryan Smith, based on what you've heard, did the feds make their case on all the charges facing Diddy?
- [45:15]
Stephen A. Smith
Transportation of individuals to engage in prostitution. Yes.
- [45:20]
Ryan Smith
Sex.
- [45:21]
Stephen A. Smith
Because there's definitely evidence of. There's witnesses who come forward, talk about calling this person. They come across state lines that I think is easier to solve. That is not the biggest charge, though, in terms of rico, in terms of sex trafficking, I don't know. And I'm not. I wouldn't say no, because we're not in that courtroom. And so much is relying on them tying everything together today, right now with what they're saying in those closing arguments. But here's my problem. They talk about Diddy getting together with all these people. They talk about that one of his assistants, people like Krista Corum, Christina Quorum, who's one of these people who sets these things up, who people were talking about a lot in the courtroom. I had a little bit of a problem that I didn't hear from all of these people because you're saying Diddy. And in order to do rico, you have to say Diddy and others did these things in furtherance of the enterprise. Where are the others? Some of the others came forward. But if you're that jury and you don't believe that all these others have the are part of his enterprise, then you're searching for the other people. Then doubt comes in. So right now, I would say based on what we've seen, I think the prosecution has a strong case, but it is definitely not a slam dunk. It is definitely not clear. There's big differences between this and R. Kelly case and rico, for example, and this is not something that I think is an easy one to prove for them.
- [46:44]
Brian Windhorst
So I think it's 50, 50 jury deliberations. How long you anticipate this could this could go because the trial could end whether it's tomorrow or it could end by Monday. And then jury deliberations kick in. How long do you anticipate that'll take?
- [46:56]
Stephen A. Smith
Can go days. But I'll say one thing, what's gonna be interesting to me and what I think people should keep an eye on. Will the judge give the jury this case on Friday? It's a very small point, but sometimes when juries have a case on Fridays and they really want to go home and they really want to be done, they rush it and you could have a verdict on Friday. My sense here is the judge might have them start on Monday. So they're really thinking it through and being thorough. And if that's the case, I think it could go on for days. And it's mostly because of that RICO charge. I think it is a very complicated thing that prosecutors have to do here to tie it all together to prove that case. And I think we see clearly. Look, Stephen, we can look at this case no matter what you think. We see that Diddy is a bad guy. We see that he did bad things. But are they criminal things? Are they criminal things? And I don't know if we see that here. And I think that's going to take the jury a long time to sort out.
- [47:47]
Brian Windhorst
Very last question. I know this trial hasn't been televised. The judge didn't want that. That's why we see the drawings and all of this other stuff. Is it possible that the judge may allow the verdict to be televised?
- [48:01]
Stephen A. Smith
No, I don't think so. I think this is going to be shut down the whole way through. I think one thing that people can look for, though, even as they hear about the decision, is he convicted on one thing and not on others? And I will say this, Stephen A. If he's convicted, say for example, on the transportation to commit prostitution, but not on the other two, that is a loss for the prosecution, a huge loss. Because you want to get him on that top charge. You mentioned it at the very beginning. He faces life in prison. That's for those things like sex trafficking for RICO conspiracy. And if they don't get convictions on that, that is a huge loss not only for this case, but for a prosecutor's office that is trying really hard to hold powerful people accountable for what they consider to be criminal acts created by an enterprise. If they can't get a conviction here, that's a problem on those big two charges.
- [48:52]
Brian Windhorst
Wow. The one and only. Ryan Smith, ABC News, espn. Right here with your boy, Stephen A appreciate you as always, my man. Take care of yourself. We'll talk soon, all right?
- [49:00]
Stephen A. Smith
Yeah, man, you too. Get some rest.
- [49:01]
Brian Windhorst
I do my best. We'll do my best. Coming up, a political stunner in New York City's mayoral race has President Trump attacking the Democratic front runner. What does this mean for the Democratic Party? I'll get into that and more with Kevin. California Representative Ro Khanna. All that and more coming up right here next on the Stephen A. Smith Show. Back with more in a minute. Welcome back to Stephen A. Smith Show. My next guest represents California's 17th congressional district. Please welcome back to the show Representative Ro Khanna. How are you, sir? How's everything going? It's been a while.
- [49:38]
Ro Khanna
It's good to be back on. Good to be back on with you. Not on Bill Maher. My recommendation for anyone watching, do not debate Stephen A. On Bill Maher won't turn out well for you. So I'm glad we're a show like.
- [49:53]
Brian Windhorst
This, I wouldn't go that far. But on a more serious matter, before I even get into Trump and Israel and the Iran situation and what have you, how is the state of California doing in your mind, in your estimation? We know what's been going on over the last few weeks. Obviously, the Israeli Iran situation distracted us from what was transpiring in California. We have 1400 National Guardsmen, 1700, 700 Marines, United States Marines descended upon the state of California, the city of Los Angeles, courtesy of the president sending them there. What has life been like for you guys in California?
- [50:31]
Ro Khanna
I have a common sense perspective on this. First, no one should be on waymos burning them down. No one should be engaged in violence or harassment against law enforcement officers. No one should be engaged in violence against anyone. And we need to make sure in California, our local police and our state officials make sure that people are safe and that there's zero tolerance for violence or the destruction of property. At the same time, no one in California was asking for the National Guard or the Marines. And the president, in my view, clearly overreached. And I guess people just want common sense. They want California to take care of this. The sheriff can, the police can. They don't want the president sort of grandstanding about it. But they also don't have sympathy for people burning down cars and they want politicians to condemn that.
- [51:28]
Brian Windhorst
What about the notion, because you got a lot of people on the right, that they're looking at California as a sanctuary state and they think that that's problem and ultimately you have elected officials trying to get in the way of ICE doing its job and what have you. All of that conflict has stirred up and flagrantly so, I might add. What are your thoughts about that as a representative of the state of California, it being essentially a sanctuary state, the role that a lot of people believe that's played in forcing and compelling the president to take the position that he has taken. You're not a Republican, you're not a member of the gop, you're a Democrat president, but obviously, you know what, you exercise common sense in a lot of ways and that's why you should be applauded for it. What are your thoughts about that situation in terms of whether or not the president was right in doing what he's done in terms of, because of what's existing in the state of California?
- [52:19]
Ro Khanna
The reason I disagree with what the President did is it was not like there were people who were willfully standing in the way of, of ICE enforcement. I mean, if that was the case in a large level, that, that is very different. But I think what most Americans want is if you're a violent gang member, if you are part of committing violence against anyone and you're here undocumented, that you should be deported after you have your due process. I mean, they want you to have due process and they're fine. But I don't think what most Americans want is if you're working in a farm job, if you're working in a hotel, if you're working in a restaurant, even if you're undocumented and you're paying taxes, that we need to rip you away from your families and deport you, I think they believe you should be having some path to stay in the country and work. And you know what, even President Trump has said that, that if you're a farm worker, if you're in the hospitality industry, if you're in the restaurant industry, if you're working here, if you're paying taxes, if you're law abiding, then let's have some path to legalization. So my, I wrote an op ed in the file, FOX on Fox News saying, okay, Mr. President, why don't we find common ground there? Why don't we look to a path to legalization for hard working taxpayer people who are undocumented and focus the ICE resources actually on the violent criminals. That's what you said you would do when, when you won the presidency.
- [53:42]
Brian Windhorst
I'll get back to that in terms of let's find common ground that issue a little bit later on in this discussion. But for the moment, I want to transition to the Iran Israel situation that has unfolded over the last few days. You introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump from escalating tensions with Iran, co sponsored with Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie, the lone Republican involved in the effort. How did you two come together on this?
- [54:09]
Ro Khanna
We both believe that this country has been in too many endless wars overseas. And by the way, that's been bipartisan. Yes, George W. Bush got us into the Iraq war. That was a mistake. But there were a lot of Democrats who voted for that war, including people like Senator Chuck Schumer. Then we got into a war in Afghanistan for 20 years. Now, I supported the initial strikes in Afghanistan, but we should not have been there for 20 years. Then we struck Libya. I mean, I deeply admire President Obama, but he was wrong in striking Libya in an unconstitutional way. And then we were involved in Yemen. We were funding the refueling of Saudi planes to strike Yemen. That was unconstitutional. So Massie and I have been consistent. This is not a partisan issue. This is not against President Trump, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. We're saying two things. One, you've got to come to Congress first before you go into a overseas war, because that's what the Constitution requires. That's what two thirds of the American people want. And second, the American people are sick of this. They don't to want want more troops in the Middle East. They don't want billions of dollars in the Middle East. They want the focus here at home. And they want war to be a last resort, and that's why we introduced it.
- [55:23]
Brian Windhorst
But, Representative Connor, you and I both know, particularly in the climate that exists in today's politics, there's no way on earth you're going to get anything done if you got to go to Congress to get something done, because you're going to have people voting against you just because, I mean, there are people that have given indication we're going to vote against anything Trump. We don't give a damn what it is. And obviously, on his side, there are going to be people that are going to vote for whatever he wants just to be in his good graces. So what's going to get accomplished if you have to go through Congress?
- [55:56]
Ro Khanna
I do think if there's an actual national security threat, you will get Congress to authorize it. Look, George W. Bush, even though I disagree with the war in Iraq, he got Congress's authorization to go in there for Afghanistan. He got Congress's authorization to go in there. Now, I am someone who has introduced a resolution to codify Trump's executive order on lowering prescription drugs. So I'm not one of these people who says everything Donald Trump does is wrong and I'm going to oppose it. I try to look at things issue by issue. In fact, when Donald Trump was trying to get a deal with Iran and others were criticizing him, Chuck Schumer was criticizing him. Chuck Schumer was saying, no, don't make a side deal with Iran, don't trust Donald Trump. I was saying, no, let Trump try to get a deal with Iran. But Bibi Netanyahu forced his hand. Bibi Netanyahu bombed Iran. They didn't let the negotiation to play out. And then I think that Trump has two people on his shoulders. One of the folks are the Lindsey Graham saying, let's do regime change, let's keep going. Trump tweets out, khamenei should be assassinated. Maybe we should have Iran regime change. But fortunately, there's another side to the MAGA base. Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie. They're saying you campaigned on no more wars. And I'm glad he listened to them. I'm glad he listened to some of us in Congress. And after the strikes, he said, okay, we're done, and we're going to get a ceasefire and no more, and we're not going to send more of our troops and risk getting into an escalation. So I do think it was important that Congress spoke out, and I think Congress has to. In this case, if Congress is a little slow, that's probably good, because I don't think the American people need more money, more wars overseas.
- [57:34]
Brian Windhorst
Representative CONNOR I just want to make sure, before I move on to my next question, that you understand what you just said right here over the digital airwaves of YouTube with millions of people watching you, you just said that you actually agree with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Green. I want, Are you sure you want to be on camera, on the record, stating such a thing, sir? I'm just checking. Checking. I'm just checking.
- [57:59]
Ro Khanna
When it comes to keeping us out of the war in Iran, let me tell you, those folks did more than some of the people in my own party. They were vocal. They said that Donald Trump, this is the end of your presidency. This is a betrayal of your base. And I, I, I give them credit where credit sued. There are a lot of places we disagree. But you know what, Stephen? One of the things that I get criticized for my own party. Oh, you're saying that Stephen Bannon is right on something. But I think the American people want folks to just call it as they see it. They don't want us in partisan crime.
- [58:31]
Ryan Smith
Right.
- [58:31]
Ro Khanna
When they say something I agree with, I'm going to be honest and say, yes, I agree with them. When they say something I disagree with, I'll make that clear too.
- [58:40]
Brian Windhorst
I completely agree with you. Let me move on to my next question. Because you and Thomas Massie structured the resolution as privileged, which could allow it to quickly come to a House vote. Republicans largely aligned with Trump, as I just stated. How will you move the War Powers Resolution forward and can you get more Republicans on board?
- [58:59]
Ro Khanna
I do think we can get more Republicans. We got Chuck Edwards. There are a number of Republicans who do not want this war. Now, hopefully the ceasefire holds and that we don't need it to come for a vote. If, if, if Donald Trump doesn't threaten any further action, but if the action is threatened, it should come for a vote. And by the way, this is not against Donald Trump, them. It's not even about Iran. It's simply saying that we need to listen to the people and listen to people in Congress before we commit our troops, before we commit young men into a fight overseas. One of the things, Josh Hawley, another Republican who I agree with, he said, look, here's the problem now. We've sent more troops into the Middle East. We've got more young men and women being called up who are going to have to go to the Middle East. We put our troops at risk. We're spending more money on the Middle East. Why aren't we spending that money on building manufacturing here, on helping people with health care here, on child care here? So I hope that they do not remove the privilege of this War Powers Resolution. They allow it to get a vote if it's needed and they make it clear that we're not going to allow presidents to get us into more endless wars, regardless of the party.
- [60:08]
Brian Windhorst
You've repeatedly stated that anti establishment left and right must find a way to work together. But how much hope is there really in your mind and in your heart of that actually happens happening?
- [60:18]
Ro Khanna
I think on some issues there is real hope. Let me give you three issues. The biggest problem, money in politics. I mean, you should not have people spending $250 million on a super PAC and then getting someone elected. And here's where I think Democrats get into trouble. We talk about elon Musk spending $250 million. We conveniently forget the billionaires who spent hundreds of millions of dollars on our side. There was more Superbac money for Kamala Harris than there was for Donald Trump. So get rid of all of it. No. Ban these super PACs. Why should someone be allowed to only give me $3,500 if they're contributing to a politician, but then go write a $50 million check to a super PAC? That's one area where we, the left and the right, can come together. Second, prescription drugs. They're ripping off the American people. They go charge three times less in Japan, in England, in Europe, than they charge ordinary Americans. Now, I understand if you're going to sell medicine into Mexico, into some countries in Africa, developing nations, you got to charge them less. That's humanitarian. But why are we paying three times more than people in the Western world and in places like Japan? So Donald Trump comes on, he says, I'm going to take it to Big Pharma. I want to make sure they aren't charging Americans any more than they're charging people in other countries. I introduced exactly his executive order as a bill with Republicans and Democrats. Let's get a vote on that. That's the second area left and right can come together. And third, focus here on home and don't get us into this. Huge wars overseas. Our defense budget, over 56% of federal money. People don't want that. They want money in their communities. I think that that is a left, right coalition that is coming together and that will take on the establishment on both parties.
- [62:06]
Brian Windhorst
Any thoughts on all the noise being made by some Democrats that the bombing by us to attack those nuclear sites, that, that that existed in Iran was a successful venture on the part of the president and the United States. Donald Trump, you have people on the left that saying it's not nearly as successful as he's claiming. And obviously we saw Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth say that's absolute nonsense. But also give us some time to analyze and evaluate the situation. We believe it was highly successful and that we've derailed their nuclear aspirations for a long time to come. Where do you stand on all of that?
- [62:42]
Ro Khanna
Let's look at the facts. First of all, you can't bomb know how Iran knows how to enrich uranium. Second, President Obama under the jcpoa had a verifiable agreement where Iran could not enrich more than 5% at one facility, Natan. And there was no violation by the IEA recorded until 2018. Then Trump came in, he ripped up the deal. And by the time we were bombing, it was 60% enrichment in Fordeau, but it was also enrichment across the country. Now, we don't know exactly how much damage they've done. They have done some damage, and I hope it's a lot of damage. I don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. It's a national security interest to keep Iran from having a nuclear bomb. But the problem is that whether it's six months, a year, two years, they. We know from J.D. vance that they've kept some of the enriched nuclear fuel. They can make at least 10 new bombs from there. And we know that they have the know how in some capacity with centrifuges left to be enriching uranium. So we're going to need a new agreement to actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. There's some on my party who say, well, Donald Trump ripped up the deal. Let's just bash him. I actually don't even have that view. Fine, he ripped up the deal. He shouldn't have ripped up the deal. Now he wants to do diplomacy. I'm all for it. Go win the Nobel Peace Prize. If they're going to give it to you, go just get a deal where Iran is actually committing to inspections, where Iran is committing not to have ballistic missiles, and let's have diplomacy go forward. Not this idea that we're going to go bomb Iran every years or two years when they start to develop a nuclear weapon.
- [64:22]
Brian Windhorst
So you believe that Israel and its efforts have been justified as it pertains to Iran, considering the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah, people like that, were proxies for Iran in terms of their terrorist acts? Obviously the Houthis in Yemen, we had to deal with them or what have you. You don't have any issue whatsoever with Israel and its influence over America, with America doing some of the things that it has done. You believe that, that Israel was in the right and America was in the right in terms of the actions we took. Is that a fair assessment, sir?
- [64:50]
Ro Khanna
No, I think we were in the wrong. I mean, we should not have bombed them. We should have engaged in diplomacy. And I think Netanyahu forced President Trump's hand. He should not have been bombing Iran, not just. I think it's fair to say that it's in the United States interest to deny Iran a nuclear weapon. The way to achieve that was not through bombing. The way to achieve that was through the diplomatic type of painstaking work that President Obama did, where you got an agreement where Iran was not going to ENRICH More than 5%. So why does Netanyahu not go along with that? Because the reality is Netanyahu has had a mission, a stated mission of regime change in Iran. And some of the hawks who want Trump bombing, they want a new regime. I don't think we should have a regime change wars. I think Netanyahu is, was wrong to bomb and we should have allowed Trump to continue the negotiation. I'm glad there's a ceasefire. Now he needs to go into a negotiation with Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb.
- [65:50]
Brian Windhorst
I certainly don't believe that the United States or anybody else should be engaging in a regime change either. I totally am with you on that. I'm just wondering whether or not Iran is somebody that you can trust. When they've chanted death to Israel, death to America, you know, a million times over or over the years, are they somebody that you can trust to engage in diplomacy with? That's what I'm wondering about. You really feel that that's plausible or that's possible when dealing with Iran and.
- [66:16]
Ro Khanna
Trust them, but you can verify, you know, the famous Reagan thing was trust, bus, verify. Just verify, verify. That's what Obama did. Look, Obama doesn't get. There are places. Look, I criticized Obama on Libya, right? So I'm not just a partisan here. But on the Iran deal, they got a deal where they were verifying, they had monitors and people in Iran at the whole supply chain of uranium and they were monitoring it up through 2018 and there was no enrichment beyond 5%. That's not because the Iranian government is trustworthy. It's because they were basically being monitored by the ieae. Now, there was one criticism of that deal. That deal did not apply to ballistic missiles. So they, they limited the enrichment. Iran could still develop ballistic missiles. And what would have been appropriate is for the next president to come in and say, I'm going to strengthen the jcpoa. I'm going to work to make sure that they can't develop missiles. But we have a framework. We know that Iran will negotiate with verification and that's the policy we should pursue. Not because it's somehow, you know, weak or peace loving because it's the only thing that's effective. You got two choices. You can either bomb them every year to waste American tax dollars and put our troops at risk, or we can engage in verification and get the IEA inspectors there like we had in the jcpoa.
- [67:38]
Brian Windhorst
Three quick questions before I let you get on out of here because we only got a few minutes left and I thank you so much for your time, Representative. Kind of really, really appreciate talking to you and seeing you again as well. Number one, I want to get to something that's near and dear to your heart. You were here in January to discuss the looming, looming TikTok ban, which has been extended for the third time despite a bipartisan law passed by Congress that mandates TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sell the app. Where does that stand now?
- [68:05]
Ro Khanna
I'm glad that that law has been extended. We can't kick 175 million people off of an app. We can't kick off people who use this app to make a livelihood. You know, there are 1.5 million people who are content creators in America and make a living off that. To put that in context, there's 70,000 people who make a living in steel. And to just shut all that down would be devastating for the economy, not to mention for free speech. So what we should do is keep the app open. We should require the company to be an American company. We should require the data to be stored in America. We should make it criminal for any algorithmic interference by the Chinese. The President is trying to do that, and I actually support that effort. It's one. It's another place where I. I think that Trump is doing the right thing by keeping the app open.
- [68:57]
Brian Windhorst
Transitioning to another topic. What the hell is this I'm hearing about. California legislators are proposing a ban on online fantasy sports? What is that? I mean, what are your thoughts about that? What are they doing?
- [69:09]
Ro Khanna
I'm opposed to that. Look, I. I'm never going to get into a sports discussion with Stephen A. But. But, you know, I was on a fantasy. I did fantasy teams growing up. You know, I grew up a Phillies fan, Philadelphia plant fan. I used to collect baseball cards. We used to have a team. My team almost never won. My fantasy team. And, you know, I never quit. Quite figured out whether you need to graph the quarterback or the running back first. And, you know, everyone else is looking at points. And it always amazed me that you'd be watching these games and folks would be less concerned about, you know, whether the Eagles are going to win or 49ers are going to win. They'd just be cheering for the, like, the random offensive lineman because they had them on their fantasy team. But that's, you know, that's the fun of sports. Like, when you talk about dumb things the Democratic Party does, it's like, let's go ban fantasy sports, and then let's pay $20 million to understand why we're losing young men. I mean, come on. And you wonder why we're in the state we Are as a party. It's laughable.
- [70:08]
Brian Windhorst
Exactly. Well, I will say this, and this is my last question. Can't say that in the state of New York or the city of New York, New York City. We saw Zoran Mamdani beat former governor of New York, three term governor of New York, New York, Mr. Andrew Cuomo. I mean, he beat him in the Democratic primaries just a couple of days ago. What was your reaction, what was your thoughts about that?
- [70:34]
Ro Khanna
It says one simple message, which is people care about the cost of living. You know, everyone is focused on what was Zoran's position on Israel, what was his position on, on the cultural issues, what was his position on ice? You know what Zoran talked about? He said rent is too high. He said that you can't afford your groceries. He said that I understand why people voted for Trump because they can't afford to buy a house. And the cost of living, they aren't making ends meet. And what I'm going to do is provide actual policies to lower the cost of living for folks to make New York affordable again. That's all he talked about. He had videos out there going to be of street vendors talking about why it costs 10 bucks for chicken over rice, a halal meal, as opposed to eight bucks, and what he was going to do to bring the cost of living down. And so what this tells me is the Democrats need an economic message. We need a message talking about how we're going to deal with the affordability crisis in this country. We need a message about how we're going to create good paying jobs in America through technology. And with AI coming, we need a message about how we're going to build things in this country.
- [71:41]
Brian Windhorst
But Representative, he's a, he's a, he's a self proclaimed socialist. He was endorsed by AOC, amongst others. And we all know that a lot of people in the general election for the presidency sort of turned against that kind of rhetoric. And that's partially why Donald Trump was voted for. I don't think that's deniable. So do you think this is something that could have a profoundly positive impact on the Democratic Party when his message, although it was, you know, you know, it was articulated it very, very well, I might add. Is that the kind of thing that's going to win you votes in the midterms and a General election in 2028 for the presidency if we take the.
- [72:24]
Ro Khanna
Best of him and discard the areas which we disagree with? It's the Stephen A. Approach. Right. I heard you on one podcast saying you put AOC in your cabinet not because you agree with everything, because you would take her good ideas and you would reject the bad ideas and you'd have some Republican and you take their good ideas and reject the bad ideas. That's what people want in this country. So if Zoran has good ideas about how to bring food prices down or if he has good ideas about how to deal with rents, let's take those. And you can still say that we should absolutely condemn chance, like globalize the Intifada and we should recognize that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. The problem in our politics is we've become so black and white as if you have to agree with something when somebody won everything. And I think what this country is hungry for is leadership that tries to bring people together, that takes the best ideas, whether it's from a Steve Bannon or a Zoran, and says we're going to look at the best, what people have to offer and offer a unifying vision of this country.
- [73:23]
Brian Windhorst
Very last question to you. Very last question. You, the way you articulate your message, I mean, you're the kind of person that people should be listening to more, should be hearing from more. To be quite honest with you, you haven't heard your name for the governor's seat of California. Haven't heard your name when it comes to presidential ambition, sir, should you be pursuing those things? And if not, why not, when you seem to be speaking to a vast majority of American citizens.
- [73:54]
Ro Khanna
Well, I was promoting you, Stephen. I was just trying to get onto your ticket. Don't do that, don't do that. That's, that's what the campaign. But they look, I, I, I think we need more independent voices. I, that's why I liked what you were out there saying. I, I think we need, let me say the three things I think we need in this country. One, we need people are going to call out both parties if they are right or wrong, not just being our partisan tribes. Second, we need people focused on the economy. My district has $14 trillion saving five companies over a trillion dollars. The AI revolution is going to produce huge wealth, but we can't be a nation half prosperous and half in decline. We need people who are going to figure out with this AI revolution, how we're going to create good paying jobs and economic opportunity in places that have been left out. And third, we got to have people who are going to be on Team America who are going to try to bring this country together, not be partisan. You know, I'll end with this point. I voted against. I led the charge against Trump on the Iran War Powers Resolution, and then I voted to table the impeachment. And on the left, some people saying, oh, you're a hypocrite. You're a hypocrite. I'm saying, well, there are other presidents who had committed unconstitutional things. I don't want to make this partisan. I want to figure out how we bring the country together in a big coalition. So I don't know whether my type of politics can win a particular primary, but I do know it's where the American people are to be independent, to call balls and strikes, not to be just reflexively partisan.
- [75:25]
Brian Windhorst
Representative ro Khan, the 17th district of California. Always an honor and a privilege to talk to you, sir. I really enjoyed being on Real Time with Bill Maher with you. I really enjoyed our communication since that time, and I have no doubt we will continue to communicate with one another. You are all always welcome on this show. Sir, thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to come on. Really appreciate it. You take care of yourself.
- [75:43]
Ro Khanna
Thank you. It was my honor.
- [75:45]
Brian Windhorst
I appreciate Representative Rocon. I really, really do. I had a blast being on Real Time with Bill Maher. With him, obviously, he's knowledgeable, he's passionate, but he's. He's about common sense. He makes sense, and he's willing to disagree with his own party. Call him balls and strikes. You know what that means, ladies and gentlemen. He's somebody that can be trusted. And anybody in politics that can be trusted is somebody that we should try to elevate and make sure that we shine a light upon them and give them the shine that they deserve because at least we know where they stand and we can trust them. It's a big, big deal. It's a big, big deal. Want to thank Ryan Smith again for coming on the show. Of course, Representative Ron as well. Book it with Trent. Always good to see him. And my man Brian Wentos for breaking down the NBA draft the way that he did. That's it for this edition of the Stephen A. Smith Show. I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did. I'll see y' all in a few days. Have a wonderful, wonderful week and God bless. Until next time. Peace of love, everybody. Be safe.
- [76:43]
Ryan Smith
Sam.