One other question for you Dr.
Rashad, and I apologize,
it's more like an interview but
I am just- >> It's all good.
>> Yeah, well one of the pieces of
this is whether or not qualified
immunity could be reformed,
this is what they're talking about,
so that the department could be on
the hook.
I believe it's the department or
the precinct could be on the hook
versus the individual.
Is that a better, almost,
yeah, like a compromise?
>> Let me tell you why I
think that's a bad compromise.
Because if an officer acts in
a particular way,
while executing his or her duties,
then the office to some degree may
already be on the line.
It depends on how
that jurisdiction interprets it.
What I'm afraid will happen if
we go with this federal compromise,
that it basically doesn't change
much locally, because a lot of
local jurisdictions,
they have policies to make citizens
hold when a cop steps out of line.
It should be both.
And here's why it should be both.
There's a greater
principal argument here.
You know why surgeons don't make as
many mistakes as they used to?
It's because of tort law.
tort law would sue them to oblivion
if they made certain mistakes.
>> Right. >> And so
the industry created best practices
and new certifications for
surgeons so that surgeons had to be
board certified in order to limit
their liability in the industry.
And who benefits from that?
The people who are getting
the surgery.
So who would benefit from police
officers being held to a higher
standard or
what we call a normative standard
of accountability?
The people they police and
that's why I am no compromise on
the qualified immunity part of
the bill.
>> What do you think about, I mean,
and this is interesting because I
just want to read this quote from
the White House through Jen Psaki.
Who is saying the president is
still very hopeful that he will
sign the George Floyd Justice in
policing Act into law.
She says we're closely engaged with
negotiators while also leaving
the Senate room to work.
You feel like this is enough?
What what else can Joe Biden do
other than everything, other than
get the Democrats on board and
abolish the filibuster?
But yeah,
what kind of pressure could we be
seeing from the Office of
the White House around this issue?
>> I've been trying to figure out
Joe Biden, as far as his leadership
around these massive issues, for
a couple of months.
Either he is A, unable to lead in
a particular way or he's unwilling
to lead in a particular way.
He has not placed the full weight
of the White House behind anything,
Nothing.
He has not placed the full weight
of the Democratic Party even
against other Democrats.
And these Democrats are holding up
true progress in America.
The vast majority
of Americans voted for an agenda.
They didn't vote for Joe.
Let's be honest, nobody was excited
about voting for Joe Biden.
Hell, O wasn't excited about voting
for Joe Biden.
I was excited about voting for
an agenda that was contrary to
the monster we had in office for
four years.
And I did not want to see what that
looked like eight years down
the road, right?
So we voted in a way that said
we are putting an agenda above
everything else.
If Biden does not deliver
the agenda by putting his full
political weight behind these
massive social policies to change
the soul of this nation,
if he doesn't do that, then we'll
see him at the ballot box or not.
That's how this will work.
And it's sad,
because you got great progressive
leadership in power right now,
all across this country like never
before, but he's still the guy.
He's still the leader.
You have to follow this guy to
some degree, and he's the one that
can block anything.
And if he's not leading in front,
but trying to leave from behind in
this era, it won't work.
>> Yeah, I mean, and especially
thinking about who gave him that
mandate, which communities, right?
We're talking about the black
community.
We're talking about the immigrant
community.
And on those two particular topics
when it comes to police reform and
when it comes to immigration
reform, Biden is absolutely leading
from behind.
It has not been his approach.
He is not looking to stick his neck
out for either of those two issues.
And look, I think it's great that
he invited the George Floyd family
into the White House.
That's fine.
But what about going to
Minneapolis?
What about going to the family?
What about going to communities and
really talking with them?
What about talking to the family
of Daunte Wright?
What about just looking and
understanding with his own eyes?
I mean, imagine the press that
that would cause.
That would be a huge statement.
So I do think that there are other
ways besides sort of symbolic meet
and greet.
There's better symbolism to be had.
But there's also, yeah,
actually pushing for
a piece of legislation or
look I don't know what can and
can't you do with executive order.
We still don't know.
We were like, how many years?
>> It's so ambiguous and
here's why I'm mad.
And a lot of people are going
to completely disagree with me and
I'm fine.
>> Okay [LAUGH].
>> I'm fine with the disagreement.
I'm at this place now.
Damnit, do everything by executive
order until the judge overturns it.
And that's almost how the previous
administration got stuff done.
Just do it.
Do it, if a judge tells you you
can't do a file an appeal,
then file another appeal.
But do something,
do something, Joe.
These folks depended on you to
deliver an agenda and why haven't
you gone to Joe Manchin?
I'm talking about to his state,
bring a family to his state.
Make an optical spectacle there.
If you want to do optics, let's do
it in the state of a guy who's low
hanging fruit on one hand.
But also an individual who's
a contrarian to the progress we're
talking about.
[MUSIC]