#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 11.13: Public impeachment hearing against Trump; SCOTUS hears Byron Allen v. Comcast; MD HBUCs Rally

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

11.13.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: House Intelligence Committee held its first public impeachment hearing against Donald Trump; SCOTUS hears Byron Allen v. Comcast discrimination case; MD HBUCs and their supporters rally for equitable funding in Annapolis and demand Gov. Larry Hogan and state legislators to settle a federal lawsuit #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: Ebony Foundation | Home by the Holiday Home by the Holiday aims to reunite Black and Latino families separated by bail, while challenging racial injustice and mass incarceration. For more info visit https://www.homebytheholiday.com/ - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org - Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Martin! Să facem o pătrunjelă. Thank you. Să facem o pătrunjelă. Thank you. Să facem o pătrunjelă. Thank you. Today is Wednesday, November 13th, 2019. Coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered, major news all coming out of the DMV. The House Intelligence Committee held its first public impeachment hearing today against Donald Trump on Capitol Hill. We'll show you some of the testimony and break it down with our panel of political and legal experts. At the Supreme Court,

Byron Allen's racial discrimination case against Comcast went before the nine justices. I'll sit down and talk with him about what happened in today's Supreme Court. And I was in Annapolis, Maryland, where we held a rally outside of the state capitol, calling on Governor Larry Hogan, as well as Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford, to step up and properly fund the HBCUs in that state for duplication programs where a federal judge held there was no doubt in the juror's segregation against those schools.

Folks, a jam-packed show. It's time to bring the funk. I'm Roland Martin on the filter. Let's go. Whatever it is, he's got the scoop, the fact, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling. Best belief he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks.

He's rolling. It's Uncle Roro, y'all. It's rolling, Martin. Yeah. Rolling with Roland now Yeah, yeah, yeah He's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best You know he's Roland Martin

Now Martin All right, folks. on Capitol Hill today, folks were riveted with testimony coming out of the House in the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, focusing on the circumstances surrounding Trump's July 25th phone call with the president of Ukraine.

We heard testimony from William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Ambassador Taylor dropped the first bomb in his opening statement, saying, quote, Last Friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26th. While Ambassador Volker and I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland met with Mr. Yermak following Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump

and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland about the investigations. Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward following the call with President Trump. The member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland

what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for. At the time I gave my deposition on October 22nd, I was not aware of this information. I'm including it here for completeness. As the committee knows, I reported this information through counsel,

the State Department's legal advisor, as well as to counsel for both majority and minority on the committee. It's my understanding that the committee is following up on this matter. Boy, it was, again, quite a busy day. Folks, go ahead and just roll tape of some of the questions, including some of the silly stuff happening on the Republican side when they got a chance to ask questions. Go.

Mr. Kent, you said that a president has the right to remove an ambassador because the ambassador served at the pleasure of the president. Is that correct? That is correct, ma'am. Does that removal usually come with the smear campaign of that ambassador by the president? I think the right of the president to make a decision about the president's personal representative, as confirmed by the Senate, is separate from whatever happens outside the confines of U.S. government processes. Do you have any idea why it was important to discredit Ambassador Yovanovitch, what she was not willing to do or to do, why that was important? Well, I guess it probably depends on the motivation of other people

and I am not one of them. The committee's investigation has uncovered a web of shadow diplomacy engaged in and executed by several State Department officials and the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and ultimately directed by President Trump. We have heard several ways of describing this shady shadow operation, shadow diplomacy, rogue back channel. Ambassador Taylor, you have described what you encountered as the top diplomat on the ground in Ukraine as a, and I quote, highly irregular, informal channel of U.S. policymaking. You testified that the channel included Ambassador Volker, Sondland, Secretary Perry, and as you later learned, the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Both of you have explained that you grew

seriously concerned when you realized that the interests of this irregular channel diverged from official U.S. policy and interests. Was Mr. Giuliani promoting U.S. national interests or policy in Ukraine, Ambassador? I don't think so, ma'am. Mr. Kent? No, he was not. What interest do you believe he was promoting, Mr. Kent? I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. Ambassador Taylor? What interest do you believe he was promoting?

I agree with Mr. Kent. The State Department's role is to promote U.S. policies overseas, not to help the current president win re-election. Is that correct, Mr. Kent? Let me touch briefly on the campaign to remove career diplomat Ambassador Yovanovitch. Mr. Kent, you stated in previous testimony that you were aware of the, quote, campaign of slander against the ambassador in real time, which basically unfolded in the media. Where do you understand this misinformation campaign was coming from and who was essentially perpetuating it? To my understanding, the then prosecutor general of Ukraine, now ex-Yuri Lutsenko, met Rudy Giuliani in New York on a private visit in January they had a second meeting in February and through

the good offices of the former mayor of New York Yuri Lutsenko gave an interview to John Solomon then of the hill in early. and the United States and the U.S. and the United States. The campaign was launched in early March and the campaign was launched on March 20th. A corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor gave an interview to a reporter in the United States

and made claims that the ambassador provided officials with a quote do not prosecute list. Sir, do you have any reason to believe this is true? I have every reason to believe it is not true. What was the reputation of the man who made these allegations, sir? Yuri Lutsenko was a politician of long standing.

He'd been Minister of Interior after the Orange Revolution. The US Embassy had good relations with him for years. He was imprisoned by President Yanukovych, came out, was elected majority leader of Poroshenko, the then president's party, and then became prosecutor general in the spring of 2016. What was your experience with Ambassador Yovanovitch? Was she working hard to combat corruption in Ukraine, sir? She was dedicated, as is every U.S. government official in Ukraine,

to help Ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption, which they actually have made a number of important steps since 2014. So in fact, before all of this happened, you and your superiors at the State Department asked the ambassador to extend her time in the Ukraine, correct, sir? That is correct. Did you support her extension? I asked her to extend until the end of this year to get through the election cycle in Ukraine, and then Under Secretary Hale in March asked her to extend until the end of this year to get through the election cycle in Ukraine, and then Under Secretary Hale in March asked her to stay until 2020. Now, some in Ukraine probably disliked her efforts to help Ukraine root out corruption. Is that correct? As I mentioned in my testimony, you can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people.

Fair enough. Now, some of those people helped Giuliani smear her, did they not? They did. So ultimately that smear campaign pushed President Trump to remove her, correct sir? I cannot judge that. What I can say is that Rudy Giuliani's smear campaign was ubiquitous in the spring of 2019 on Fox News and on the internet and Twittersphere. So Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, in all of your combined decades at the State Department, have you ever before seen an instance where an ambassador was forced out by the president following a smear campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the president's allies? I have not.

Taylor, my first questions are to you, and these are questions that are on years prior to your time in the Ukraine, but I'm pretty sure you can answer them. Did the Ukrainians get aid in FY17? Did they get any aid in FY17? Yes, sir, they did get assistance. And they got security assistance as well? They did. And if I said that number was circa, you know, in military assistance, around 270 million, would that probably be accurate? Close.

About right? Yeah. Did they get aid in FY18? Yes, sir. Including security assistance? Including security assistance. Did they get aid in FY18? Yes, sir. Including security assistance. Including security assistance.

We've already talked about the Javelins, the anti-tank missiles that they were not able to purchase in previous administrations. Have they gotten security assistance in FY19? Yes, sir. Prior to the $400 million or so that we're discussing or have been discussing a lot here today. They got some previous year, some probably FY18 assistance, but George, you may know. It takes a while once money is obligated to actually reach the country. There were two island-class ships that just arrived in the port of Odessa, and that was with prior year money. So there's about a lag of a year. My point is that we have been supporting the Ukrainians under this administration to in order to help them kick out the

Russians who invaded their country. Yes sir. 100%. Ambassador Taylor you earlier testified that Ukrainian officials did not become aware of potential US assistance being withheld until August 29th. Is that is that accurate? That's my earlier testifying that Ukrainian officials did not become aware of potential U.S. assistance being withheld until August 29th. Is that accurate? That's my understanding, Mr. Hurd. Would you find it surprising if a Ukrainian official knew about that sooner and did not contact you? I can answer that it was only after August 29th, when the political article came out, that I got calls from several of the Ukrainian officials. Good copy.

Mr. Kent, had you had any Ukrainian official contacting you concerned about – when was the first time a Ukrainian official contacted you concerned about potential withholding of USAID? It was after the article and political came out and that first intense week of September gotcha. So after that August 29th conversation There's a lot of talk about Rudy Giuliani and who he was and wasn't meeting. Do we know or have an idea of the Ukrainian officials that he was meeting with over the last couple of years? I don't, sir.

Have you had any Ukrainian officials call you after a meeting with Rudy Giuliani concerned about the nature or the context of that conversation? Yes. Rudy Giuliani concerned about the nature or the context of that conversation? Yes, Mr. Yermak has expressed concern about his interactions with Mr. Giuliani. And I believe that meeting was somewhere in late August, is that correct? It was, there were meetings and there were, I think, also phone calls. And y'all have talked many times that y'all are still concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Is that correct? Sir?

Have we seen whatever this anti-corruption statement we wanted the Ukrainians to make? Are you referring to the statement that was being negotiated between Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland and Andre Yermak? Yes. That was not an anti-corruption statement, sir. What was the statement? I think if you go back to the back and forth of WhatsApps that were shared by Kurt Volker, they shared a draft with Rudy Giuliani and Rudy Giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it didn't mention Biden-Brizma in 2016.

But that statement was never agreed to or was never issued by the Ukrainian officials? Is that correct? No statement of that sort was issued, correct. And have U.S. businesses ever contacted you all concerned about corruption within Ukraine? Yes, sir. As of this year even? Yes, sir. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. Has the U.S. contacted you all concerned about corruption within Ukraine?

Yes, sir. As of this year even? Yes, sir. Because the concern is not just how Ukrainian businesses run by oligarchs are being operated. It's also concerns about how

the Ukrainian government is dealing with American businesses trying to operate in Ukraine. Is that accurate? American businesses are very concerned about the judicial system in particular. Yes, sir. All right, folks, let's go ahead and break this thing down. Joining us on FaceTime, Monique Presley, of course, crisis manager and lawyer as well. Joining us right here in the studio,

we have, of course, Monique, you there? I'm here. All right, cool, just want to make sure. Also, we have Michael Brown, former vice chair of DNC Finance Committee, and also A. Scott Bolden, former chair of National Bar Association Political Action Committee. Monique, I want to start with you first and foremost. Your thoughts on today.

Republicans pretty much embarrassed themselves with their questions. But overall, your assessment, was it a successful first day on behalf of Democrats in laying out the facts of this case against Donald Trump? Oh, absolutely. They couldn't have hoped for a better first day out. Those two witnesses are the dream of any prosecuting attorney, any defense attorney. I mean, they had, those witnesses had their own representation there and their lawyers never had to as much as lean in, like not one time. It was a textbook presentation from career public servants who came with one agenda, And that was to share facts and information that they either knew about because they were personally involved or knew about because the information had been provided to them. The new format that obviously is different than the last kangaroo court proceedings that we had where it was basically the shift show.

Right. where it was basically the Schiff show, right? And his second was the Democratic Council. And between the two of them, they did some of the most flawless execution of examination of these witnesses that you could hope for without all of the ping-ponging and back and forth and interrupting. So the case was laid out. The only criticism that I really had is, look, this day is a win. Go back to legislating or something. There's no harm in finishing early

because once the examination was done by counsel, by House counsel, Mr. Goodwin, and when Mr. Schiff had finished, then it was really just turning it over to the Republicans for what was, you know, a counsel who had no facts. I don't blame him for the hideous job he did. It was hideous, but it's hideous because the president's just dead wrong and everybody knows it. And so this this attorney is trying to hold on to his integrity and still find some questions to ask. And it was horrible. And then the GOP just did what they always do, which is talk about other things and try to make them relevant. I mean, Obama, Clinton, you name it, Biden. We were everywhere. We were everywhere but on President Trump and his bribery and his extortion.

Michael Brown, what's interesting is that, again, when you watch Republicans, what they were trying to do, it really wasn't quite bribery because he didn't actually go through. That's sort of like saying, I- It doesn't have to be through to get bribery rolling. I know that, but it's sort of like saying, it's like, I know that, but it's sort of like they didn't buy the cocaine, so don't

arrest me for selling cocaine. It's pretty stupid when you look at this and they're throwing everything out there and it was just, it was utterly hilarious, but I also think having two individuals, career diplomat

individuals who, look, they understand what the job is, just methodically walk through a timeline, it's a little hard to fight that. And as Monique mentioned, Chairman Schiff just did a wonderful job, masterful, in setting everything up and the way he structured everything. But also, what I found also interesting was

Jim Jordan seems to think if he screams it makes his point for him Exactly money every time he screams it's like it's just incredible to me But then of course he never hurt people who was screaming when they were wrestlers are being sexually assaulted by no no at Ohio State Those screams he says those are allegations. Yeah, okay. Mere allegations. But, you know, also what's different from, obviously we all remember when Mr. Mueller testified.

These two gentlemen were the same kind of, you know, can't get any more upstanding than they are, but their presentation was much different. They certainly articulated themselves much differently. Mueller didn't want to do it, okay? I think that's right. He didn't want to do it. He didn't want to be there.

And frankly, Mueller didn't have the guts to go ahead and lay out really what took place. It was sort of like, just read my damn report. No, that's why we have your ass sitting in front of them, Stan, right now. That's right. And Scott, what you also had here, again, Republicans who were trying to entrap them

in the answers, but they couldn't. I mean, I can't recall the last time you had a congressional testimony where you had two witnesses who pretty much walked out unscathed. Well, you know, from a criminal defense standpoint, from a trial lawyer standpoint, lies have no details.

Remember, lies have no details. Both of these witnesses gave you details. They committed to propositions. They committed to facts. Once you do that, when you get to cross-examination, you can't undo what they've committed to. Because all they have to do is keep committing to it, and if it's the truth,

they don't have to think through any lies. So they had a lot of detail. Unlike Donald Trump, who's got to think through every lie he tells. It's all up against the wall. Let's see what sticks. The other thing that was a real challenge that we were looking for was Schiff's leadership. Could he keep control of this hearing?

Could he keep the Republicans? They made a motion early on to bring the whistleblower in as a witness. He deflected that until the end of the hearing. And so he gets high marks for keeping not only order and control, but even the Republicans on camera had to maintain some level of decorum, and it still didn't stop their silliness and them trying to cross-examine these two very strong witnesses. All of this is really scripted out, and they not only scripted it out,

but they acted and played on the script to a fault. And so today was a great day for the Democrats. The Republicans have to figure out whether they want to argue about process or whether they want to argue about whether a crime was committed and this is an impeachable offense. It doesn't really matter. These are bad acts. These are high crimes and misdemeanors and bad acts, and we saw that play out today.

And we're going to see it play out again with other witnesses. And to be honest with you, the Republicans are going to struggle to cross-examine and struggle to make a case against the Democrats for these bad acts of the president. Monique, also, I'm a great appreciation for Shade and Congressman Elise Stefanak, of course, who she was touting the other day how she's the youngest member in Congress or something along those

lines. Adam Schiff really did just throw some shade her way. Henry, go to my iPad. As the general woman should know, if she was present for the deposition. Which I was. For some of them, yes.

Depositions. As the general woman should know if she was present for the deposition. Which I was. For some of them, yes. Roll it again. Positions. As the general woman should know if she was present for the deposition. Which I was.

For some of them, yes. Come on back. Okay, don't sit here and be in the hands by saying, oh, I was there. And he's like, yeah, but not all of them. Well, and the thing is, and I confess, like, I was carrying my phone around with me everywhere today so that I could watch in real time. And she was the first up at bat. And it really is like the senior statesman on the committee set her up because before they could even ask the first question, she came in with that point of order and decided she was just going to, you know,

do her thing. And I don't know how she just didn't know that ranking membership is just not the one that you do that with and you know the rules and you know you have an opportunity to ask questions and what she was trying to say is that they couldn't and he was saying no what you're trying to do with your question is out the whistleblower and I'm not going to let you do that. That doesn't mean that you can't ask questions you know you're going to get a chance to ask questions today but the other thing that I wanted to point out, Roland, is they weren't just detailed, these witnesses. They have receipts, and the GOP can't say,

we'll prove that this was said on this day and this day, because they testified that they took contemporaneous notes, which I know Scott knows how important that is in a court of law, because you can get in things that otherwise would be ranked hearsay. But if you have some contemporaneous note taking, reflecting when it happened, and that's the only way that you can establish certain things, they have that. But listen here, the doggone State Department, Trump has people holding the notes. So there are receipts. They have turned them in. It's government property and the GOP can't say, we'll prove it. We'll prove it because then they're going to be like, uh, how about your boy? You know, your boy has the proof. Okay. And speaking of that, of course, Michael, you made this point about Representative Jim Jordan. He was real loud and all how this is a sham.

And again, the absolute shade of Congressman Jeff Welch just sort of just, you know what? If this was the movie How High, I would need some baby powder. But he's got pimp slapped by Congressman Welch. You know I got to go ahead and play it. Here, go to my iPad. We will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raise his right hand, swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. We'll never get that chance. More importantly, the American people won't get that chance. This anonymous so-called whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge, who's biased against the president, who worked with Joe Biden, who

is the reason we're all sitting here today, will never get a chance to question that individual. Democrats are trying to impeach the president based on all that. All that? Eleven and a half months before an election. We'll not get to check out his credibility, his motivations, his bias. I said this last week, but this is a sad day. This is a sad day for this country. You think about what the Democrats have put our nation through for the last three years. Started July of 2016 when they spied on two American citizens associated with the presidential campaign and all that unfolded with the Mueller investigation after that,

and when that didn't work, here we are. Based on this, based on this is a... The American people see through all this. They understand the facts support the president. They understand this process is unfair. And they see through the whole darn sham. With that, I yield back. Mr. Welch. back thank you I say to my colleague I'd be glad to have the person who started it

all come in and testify President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there that's it Mike I mean all that he was like that's the man to. I mean, all that, he was like, that's a man and a half. I'm going to smack you with 10 seconds. But that's not... Hold on, Mike, Mike. And Mueller did not have that either ability. He either wasn't granted the ability to do it,

didn't want to do it, didn't push back, whatever the reason. But this congressman said, put him in the seat. Have him raise his hand. And that's the one thing Trump had to do, except for his written answers, which were, obviously, those are under oath. And there's already been some questions

about whether his answers are correct or not from the Mueller report. Put him in the seat. Put him in the seat. I gotta put this last one. I'm-I'm gonna really need Scott to explain this one here. Again, I love it when they get cute. And I don't know why is it

some of the most stupid members of Congress come from Texas, on the Republican side, like, like, like like no no but on the Republican side like like Louie Gohmert okay and this other goober uh John Ratcliffe how dumb are you to make the argument for the other side and then you know you sounded stupid in making the argument, and so you freeze and go, oh, shit, what did I just say? Y'all, watch this idiot.

If they impeach President Trump for blackmail or extortion or making threats or demand, they have to call President Trump a liar to do it. I yield back. If they impede impeach President Trump for blackmail or extortion or making threats or demand they have to call President Trump a liar to do it. I yield back. Okay I'm going to provide the proper audio for how that really should have gone. Okay. No, no, Monique. I got to do it. Okay. All right. Go back to it. Impeach President Trump for blackmail or extortion or making threats or demand.

They have to call President Trump a liar to do it. Oh, shit. I'll just actually admit it. Watch, okay, watch the ambassador's face. I yield back. He's smiling like, Scott, he's smiling going, hey, fool, did you realize what you just said? He didn't. Because there was a line of him saying

that the Ukrainian president would have to have been lying when he released his statement saying there was no pressure, there was no quid pro quo, blah, blah, blah. And everyone else was saying, well, of course he said that because the person who has him hemmed up is the president of the United States. But before that, he kept saying, you got to prove, you got to call not just President Trump, but also, you know, President Zelensky, a liar, the Ukrainian president. You got to impeach them, too. And somebody, I think, posted, I think it was Leah Dosh, where he was like,

can somebody explain to this idiot that we can't impeach other presidents, but we can impeach our own? Scott, I mean, Scott, it really was like Comedy Central. I thought it was a Cheech and Chong movie. No, but here's why Jim Jones. Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan.

Who's more like Jim Jones, the cult dude, yeah. He puts all this voice inflection into his statement. And the roll-up shirts and the cult. And the rolled-up shirts. And the fact of the matter is that the whistleblower may have been the impetus for the investigation, but he has been corroborated by government officials, by the president himself, by the chief of staff, and by written documents. They held up $ 400 million four or

five days before the call in July that's called insurance just in case Zelinsky doesn't act right but the most damning part of that phone call that most people don't talk about is at the end of that phone call Zelinsky says I'll do it I'll have my new prosecutor we will investigate them right now whether they investigated them or not, that's the completion of the deal. Whether you call it bribery or a shakedown or quid pro quo, that's the completion of the deal.

And all this hearsay, you don't need the whistleblower to impeach the president because you got witnesses that are saying he did it. Who cares about the whistleblower at this point? And guess what? Hearsay, they have corroborated, the best defense to hearsay allegation is, they've corroborated everything the whistleblower said.

So what is Jim Jordan and the Republicans talking about? He went to Trump University. Just BS. Just stop it. His white guy's law degree. Stop it. We're going to have more hearings next week that will be public,

and so it shall be interesting to see how this unfolds, folks. Now, while that was going on, I was actually in Annapolis, Maryland, where a rally was held outside the state capitol there on behalf of the four HBCU universities. They beat Maryland in the courts that proved that the duplication of programs hurt HBCUs in Maryland, Coppin State, Morgan State, as well as University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, and, of course, Bowie State. And the problem, though, is that Governor Larry Hogan

only wants to offer $200 million. Testimony during the trial said that HBCUs should get about a billion dollars. They said, look, we'll settle for $577 million. Governor Larry Hogan has said, forget that.'ll settle for $577 million. Governor Larry Hogan has said, forget that. My last offer is $200 million. The rally today was about putting pressure on

Governor Hogan and his black lieutenant governor, Boyd Rutherford, do the right thing and fund those HBCUs. Here's some of the stuff that was said at today's rally. Gentlemen, I'm in college. I say dual role call. some of the stuff that we'll see at today's rally. Gentlemen, Colin! Good afternoon.

I'm David Berkley, president of the coalition that bought this case 13 years ago. I have some prepared remarks. I don't really need this for this case. No. That's right. You guys know why I'm here.

That's right. And I do want to depart from some of my remarks because I want to go back to something that Senator Elijah Cummins said last year. I was honored to have received a citation from him, a recognition. And he asked me one question. He asked me, why? How do you do it? How do you stay in there so long for a case that has been in the courts for so many years? And my answer was very simple.

You can't hear me? Speak up! How about now? Yes! I just said I remember remarks that the late Congressman Elijah Cummings asked of me at a reception where I received a recognition from him. The question was, why? How long can you stay and hang in there for this case? And I said, as long as it takes. In my professional life,

I worked with minority manufacturing companies to help level the playing field for their engagement, to get them to compete, not as minority manufacturing companies, but companies that can compete because they are just the darn best. And there's no difference here in terms of HBCUs. People want HBCUs to compete,

not because they are HBCUs, but because they are the best. They can attract the best, and they can be the best, but not without the resources requisite and required to make that happen. I can't thank enough people here because I've been with this case for 13 years now. And during the course of that, I've met so many people, I wouldn't dare try to recognize everybody now. But I do want to recognize a lot of individuals that have played a major part in getting us to this day. Certainly, I want to give a shout out to the Legislative Black Caucus for making this day possible. Doc Cheatham, who's here, NAACP. Where's Doc? He's not here? Okay, but let it be known

that we reached out to Doc because he's been a great advocate for this cause. To the sororities, fraternities, my frat brothers, Alpha Phi Alpha, and all the sororities, thank you for coming out this day and making this day possible. Without the support of

two legal entities, the largest committee for civil, well actually three, the Howard University Civil Rights Law Clinic, they have been very instrumental in making this possible. The large committee for civil rights under law, they led us to an organization called the Kirkland Ellis Law Firm. Let it be known that without their support, this case would not have gotten to where we are today.

Come on. All right, Monique, I want to start with you. Here's what's amazing. Boyd Rutherford, Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, black man, Howard University graduate. Thank you. You know. Well, first of all, it ain't like he's standing by neither one of y'all because he's with Governor Larry Hogan with his $200 million offer.

It's an insult. And the bottom line is, what I said at that rally today is that to Democrats in Maryland, if the governor does not do right, come January, when the legislature comes back and meet, the pressure should be put on Democrats

who control the House and the Senate to pass a bill to give those HBCUs that $577 million. The joke of Hogan's offer is 200 million over 10 years. That's $20 million a year. That's 5 million per HBCU each year for 10 years. That's a joke. Nothing.

Well, it's a joke compared to the level of injury and the heinousness of how long it's taken to get this far. I obviously can't say enough about the value of HBCUs. I'm a proud product of an HBC law school, the only law school, Howard University School of Law, and I know that A. Scott Bolden agrees with me about that, but...

That's not the only HBCU law school. Excuse me. That's not what she said. She said the only real one. Hold up. First of all, hold up. That's offensive to anybody who went to Thurgood Marshall School of Law from Houston, Texas Southern University. That's first. What about FAMU? FAMU is a law school.

I can't even win a World Series. No, no, no. It's named after him. All right. Hold up on this. Let me remind you. Let's not get distracted. Here we go.

Let me remind you. They're off in the rabbit hole. They're down the rabbit hole. Go right ahead. You might want to be able to go home one day. You might want to back off that Howard University the best. Go on right there and finish your damn comment. You don't even go to law school.

You ain't even a lawyer. It don't matter. I'm going to defend Texas. Go on with your little comment about Howard. Go ahead. It's a big comment. Hey, hey, hey. Yes.

Go. I take your comment, as Mueller would say. And moving on... Call your mama. I appreciate the value of HBCUs, and this is a fight that everybody, not just those who have graduated from one, should be willing to stand up and participate in

because it's going to take all of us to add on the pressure. Now, don't be fooled because they throw out a number like 200 million and people are supposed to be impressed. We need to stand until we get what is due. This is our future. Michael, this is not a Republican or Democratic theme because the lawsuit started on the Republican governor, then went to a Democratic governor.

They fought it. They fought it. Ignored it. They've been in mediation for several years. The federal judge is like, yo, can y'all please mediate this whole deal? Maryland didn't want to do it. But at the end of the day, the HBCUs proved it. They created interesting, unique programming in the 70s

that attracted white students to the HBCUs. The white schools saw it, duplicated those programs, the state allowed them to do that, sent the funding over there as well, which hurt the HBCUs. That's how they were able to win the lawsuit. Well, full disclosure, my twin sons went to FAMU.

My mom is a graduate of Fisk University, as they would say. But I think that also what we'll see in the future is that other states are going to do this and follow that same roadmap that they did in Maryland, because I'm sure, I have no idea, I don't have any evidence to prove it,

but I'm sure that other historically black universities in other states have been harmed, and now they're going to sue and see if they can get their monies back. Well, this sort of follows, Scott, the Mississippi laws case. Alvin Chambers argued that case. But what's crazy is that

Mississippi, 20 years ago, offered more money for their HBCUs than what Maryland did. The money 20 years ago was more than this $200 million. Yeah, the $200 million is pittance. As a graduate of Howard Law and a graduate of Morehouse College,

I sit on the board of trustees for Morehouse College and I can tell you, historical black colleges struggle. We may get gifts from Oprah Winfrey and Richard Smith, but those are dedicated funds, right? Most historical black colleges are struggling from an endowment that is well below what their counterparts are that are majority schools. But also, Howard and Morehouse are private.

These are public institutions. State funding. That's a totally different funding system. No one wants to pay the reparations for prior bad acts for these schools. And some of these schools in Baltimore, for example, I think if it's not Morgan State, produces STEM graduates and engineering graduates

at a higher level in a partnership with NASA. My point is, these monies could be used for their endowment and for operations. That's where historical black colleges struggle with. And so when you delay it, when you debate it, when you negotiate it, no matter whether you get that legislation or not, these colleges are entitled to their fair

and full reparations for prior bad conduct by the state that's been proven in federal court. And I'm gonna say this again. When in the Capital Region Minority and Proud Development Council, when they had the awards gala, we broadcast our show from there,

and I presented one of the awards. And before presenting one of the awards, I called out the state of Maryland, Governor Larry Hogan and his Lieutenant Governor, Boyd Rutherford, who happened to be sitting on the front row. Now, y'all know how I do. My philosophy is very simple. If you do good, I'll talk about you.

If you do bad, I'll talk about you. At the end of the day, I'm going to talk about you. So backstage, Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford, a brother, decided to tell me I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Oh, my. Did it get on video? Oh, no, he got it.

No, it wasn't on video. Did you turn your phone sideways? Probably me. I wish somebody else was shooting. And so, he got a little frisky with me. Told me I need to read the judge's decision. And I said, well, I'm familiar with this because I covered this on my

TV One show and my Courage show so I ain't new to this. So then he kept telling me I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. I said, well, you are more than welcome to come on my show, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and have this conversation. No, no, no, I'm not coming on your show. He said, well, you need to read the ruling.

And I did. And I'm still trying to figure out, what the hell are you defending? Y'all lost. And so this is simple. How can you be a black man who is Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and I don't care if you're a Republican, who went to an HBCU and could stand by Larry Hogan and say,

fine, 200 million is enough. Really? I ain't even go to an HBCU and hell, I know 200 million, not enough. Well, let me go ahead and make this clear, like I said in my speech today. Boyd Rutherford, let me be clear. This is black-owned. In the words of Tyler Perry, own your shit. And so come January, when the legislature comes back into session, guess what?

We're going to be on y'all ass. We live-stream today's rally, and we're going to be there again. And we're going to come to your office and come to Hogan's office. And then we're going to put pressure on Democrats in Maryland to pass the money, the $577 million. Because, see, I ain't got to ask nobody because I own my own cameras. But I'm telling you right now, don't think for a second this is the last conversation we're going to have about this. Because in the words of that

great philosopher, Frank Lucas, from American Gangster, I'm going to get that money. Gotta go to a break. We come back. We'll talk about Byron Allen regarding his Supreme Court case. Today, Dylan's lawsuit against Comcast right here, Roland Martin our YouTube channel. That's youtube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. If you want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered, be sure to join our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar that you give to us

supports our daily digital show. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. As Roland Martin Unfiltered, support the Roland Martin Unfiltered Daily Digital Show by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Our goal is to get 20,000 of our fans contributing 50 bucks each for the whole year.

You can make this possible. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. All right, folks, as the marijuana momentum continues, our good friends at MarijuanaStock.org have already reached more than half of their funding goal with the hemp CBD investment. That's right. If you want to take advantage of this great opportunity,

you need to do it now because it won't last much longer. Now, if you don't know, I'm talking about the hemp plant, the good cousin to marijuana with a much higher concentration of CBD. That means hemp gives you all the medical benefits of marijuana without getting you high. Also, if you don't know, hemp farming is now legal in the United States, creating one of the largest

commodities worldwide. It's just, again, an opportunity, an investment opportunity, and the folks at 420 Real Estate, their business model is very simple. They buy land that supports hemp CBD grow operations and leases it to licensed high paying tenants. That's right, they are hemp CBD landlords, and you can get in on the action. As Hemp continues to change the economic landscape,

420 Real Estate is allowing you to chase the American dream. Now look, the best part is right now, you can invest in this crowdfunding campaign for as little as 200 bucks. That's right, you can invest as little as 200 bucks, up to $10,000. Do it now before the fund is closed. To invest, go to marijuana stock.org.

That's marijuana stock.org. Get in the game and get in the game now. As I said, another big story happening in the nation's capital today took place at the Supreme Court where Byron Allen's racial discrimination case against Comcast came before the nine justices. Eight were there. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was ill and was not in the court today.

Now at issue is whether Allen's $20 billion lawsuit should have survived beyond the pleading stage by merely proving that his race was a motivating factor in Comcast's decision to deny carriage to his company's channel. Now the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Allen last year and some of the justices found fault with the lower court's reasoning,

do you want me to write down and talk about what happened today, is Byron Allen, CEO of Entertainment Studios. Byron, glad to have you here. Thank you. Your thoughts... Thank you for having me. I appreciate it, appreciate it.

Congratulations on your show. I really appreciate you. Thanks a bunch. So, today, your assessment. Your thoughts about what happened today. What did you hear? Did you think that the questions went well for you? Your thoughts.

I thought it went very well. And our attorneys, especially Dean Chemerinsky, who is the foremost scholar on constitutional law and has written 11 books on the subject, he felt great about it as well. I think it's very clear that it is a motivating factor and not but for. This was put on the books 153 years ago

to protect the newly freed slaves, to make sure that... Civil Rights Act. Civil Rights Act. To make sure there was a pathway for economic inclusion. And it wasn't set for the impossible standard that you must prove that 100% of the reason that I am not doing business with Roland,

100% is that he's black. And unless you can prove that it's 100%, Roland can't even bring the law forward. So they literally could say, look, it's 99% because you're black and 1% because you're wearing tennis shoes and you can't use the law. That's the motivating, you know,

that's the but-for standard. What the Ninth Circuit said, the motivating factor, which is if any part of the decision is because Rowland is black, that you didn't do it, that's enough for Rowland to simply use the law and bring it forward. And I think the questions were really terrific from the justices because they were like, well, hey, you know, Rowland doesn't know what he doesn't know. He has to go into discovery to find out what's going on. I mean, like in our hey, you know, Roland doesn't know what he doesn't know. He has to go into Discovery to find out what's going on. I mean, like in our case, you know, look at our particular case with Comcast.

They say things like, well, we don't do business with Byron because his networks have low, they're lowly rated. They have low ratings. Well, you know, listen, we could, in Discovery, we can show the world that they have over 100 networks on their platform that are white-owned that have a lower rating than ours. Then they'll say things, well, he doesn't have good quality.

It's low quality. Well, our networks are Emmy Award nominated and Emmy Award winning. And through Discovery, we can show that they carry networks, over 100 networks that are white-owned, that have never been nominated for an Emmy and have never won an Emmy. Um, they will say things like,

this is, uh, you know, this has nothing to do with race. Well, you know, they've already proven by going and partnering with-with Donald Trump's DOJ to get an amicus brief that this, you know, that there's a great deal of racial, you know, there's institutionalized racism there. I mean, not only did they get Donald Trump's DOJ to write the amicus brief,

they did something we haven't seen in ever, which is they got Donald Trump's DOJ to testify, to argue in the courtroom with them in partnership. And it is the very first time the acting solicitor general has ever gone into the United States Supreme Court to narrow a civil rights statute. So it just shows that Comcast isn't sincere when they talk about,

hey, we're in business with Magic Johnson, we're in business with P. Diddy. We never said that they didn't do business with black people. That was never, oh, we put out Harriet. What we said is, there isn't any real true economic inclusion. Here's what Comcast won't say, and my mother always says, listen for what they don't say. What they won't say to Roland and the rest of the world,

we, Comcast, spend over $11 billion a year licensing cable networks, and African Americans get close to zero of that. In the case of one of those people that they tout as we're in business with, one of them doesn't get one penny of that 11 billion dollars.

They've said to them, just sell your commercials and live off the commercials. So let's unpack this. There are seven networks that target African Americans. Yes. You've got BET, and there's just a network... Which is owned by Viacom. BET Her, owned by Viacom.

Yes. You've got TV One... Yes. And their network, Cleo TV... Yes. Where publicly traded company controlling shareholders are Alfred Liggins and Kathy Hughes, his mother. Who I love, who I love.

And so, and you go to their website, they say they are largest black-owned media company in the country. Then you have Aspire TV, which was one of the networks that went to Magic Johnson. Yes. And then you have Revolt. And then, of course, you have OWN, Oprah's network. Yes.

And so how do you respond to that in terms of them having carish deals with those networks that, again, yes, Viacom owns BET, but in the case of TV One, it's a black-owned network. Yes. How do you respond to that? Well, like I said, you know, you have to look at the numbers, and that's what the discovery will tell you, exactly how much economic inclusion are they getting

out of the $11 billion. And for the people who don't understand the cable industry, the reality is most, well, not most, but the way the deal works is there are some people who have carriage but aren't getting subscription fees, and they're simply making their money off advertising. That's right. There are other folks who do get subscription fees, and so it may run from $0.02 to $0.07 to like ESPN had the highest subscription fees out of everybody.

They were getting upwards of six, seven bucks from every subscriber. Even higher. So when you pay your cable bill, $8 goes to ESPN. A dollar goes to what? And those were seven to 10 year contracts, money locked in. Yes.

Billions and billions of dollars throughout the industry. So when people, you also have, I forgot, Africa Channel. Yes. Paula Madison and her brother owns that network. So, again, what people don't understand is that they assume that every company is getting subscription fees. They're not. Some are, some are not.

It's based upon the negotiation with the cable company. Yeah, that's right. And that's what I've said. I said through discovery, we'll show that David Cohen, whose personal compensation is $20 million a year, and Brian Roberts, his annual personal compensation is $20 million a year, and Brian Roberts, his annual personal compensation is $35 million a year. You can pick either one of them, and they take out personally more than they pay all of black-owned media combined.

They don't get paid sub-fees. As a matter of fact, if you Google it, March of 2018, Revolt had to lay off a third of their staff because they're not getting enough support. As a matter of fact, Revolt didn't even get half of the subscribers that Comcast has to offer, and they didn't even give Revolt

Philadelphia, as if there are no African Americans there. So here's the problem. Now, it went very well in the Supreme Court. It's a big problem for Comcast. Pretty much the justices told the world, this case needs to go forward. They pretty much said it.

Now we, hopefully we will go forward. We can now get the contracts. We can show the world everything that they're not doing. You know, that's what's key. You have to be able to look at that. You have to have your right to have access to that information. They're not spending money and doing business with us. They put us out there as window dressing. But when it comes to the

$11 billion, that's what the question is. Of the $11 billion, how much is African-American-owned media participating in that amount of capital? And that number is closer to zero than perhaps what it should be, which is 10%, 1.1 billion. So, 1.1 billion, now there's more than enough money for Roland to do whatever he needs to do. He's truly there. He has a seat at the table.

He's getting real economic inclusion. Why is that important? Well, a lot of the money that Comcast is pulling out of the African American community doesn't come back to us. To be the number one cable provider in America, you have to hook up all the black cities, all the major black cities. They're literally pulling billions out of our community.

And of course, money's coming from obviously cable systems, from internet, also set-top boxes, all of those different things. You said before that if Supreme Court rules in favor of Comcast, this is going to set black businesses back. How? Oh, wow. I mean, listen, you won't be able to get an attorney. If somebody says, you know, listen, Martin, let me be really clear.

I'm firing you, and 99% of it, Martin, is because you're black. Now, the other 1%, once again, is the tennis shoes. Well, you're going to have a tough time getting a lawyer to represent you on contingency. Now, they can discriminate against you. Because they're... They put it at the but-for. Because, right, the but-for meaning it has to be... The sole reason.

It has to be 100%. 100%. The sole reason, right? So now they put the standard at a level that's impossible to achieve. So now I'm positioned, now they put the standard at a level that's impossible to achieve. So now I'm positioned, now they're positioned to discriminate against you and you're not able to use the law to protect yourself and have any recourse. And when they start stripping away your rights, and you're watching that play out this week, whether it was DACA yesterday and they're going

after everybody's rights, the moment they have your rights, then they can, you know, you're, you know, basically, they can treat you like a stray dog. So, having this right is important. Just, it was, it's a simple statute, and some historians believe that the reason we never got, you know, you know, reciprocity, and we never got 40 acres and a mule, is we got this law.

We got this law that says, here's a pathway for economic inclusion. And now they're shutting it down. And, you know, when I say, listen, if you, Comcast, if you're a, We got this law. We got this law that says, here's a pathway for economic inclusion. And now they're shutting it down. And, you know, when I say, listen, if you, Comcast, if you really believe you have a strong case and you really believe that you are phenomenal, then let's just go into the courtroom.

You don't have to go to the Supreme Court and jeopardize the civil rights of over 100 million minorities in America. Let's just go and show everybody the paperwork. Let's show everybody that you're spending over $11 billion a year licensing cable networks, and the people you tout as the ones you're in business with don't get any subscriber fees.

See, their big problem is, we know somebody that was in the room when the MOU was crafted, and they told us... When you say the MOU... The Memorandum of Understanding for Black People. So when Comcast was looking to acquire NBC Universal, they

were under severe criticism by Congresswoman Maxine Waters and others. And many others. And many other groups. That they shouldn't get this big. And what they then did was, they then went to their civil rights groups for their support. That's right. Crafted this Memorandum of Understanding. That's right. Crafted this memorandum of understanding. That's right.

And then in order for them to get their blessings to go before the court system. That's exactly right. So when you look at that... If I'm not the court system, for the federal government to approve the acquisition merger. Go ahead. That's exactly right. So when you look at this MOU, you can get into the details of that MOU. You can see that, you know, we can get in there and we can say, okay, what exactly was going on

here? This person said they were in the room, right? They said, look, this MOU was legally and financially engineered so that they could fail. This is what someone... You say they. Magic and P. Diddy could fail. This is what I was told. That's what will come out in this hearing. This person's going to say, and discovered, this person's going to say, under testimony, under oath,

it was crafted for them to fail. And they purposely picked Magic and P. Diddy because they knew that if they failed, when they failed, that they wouldn't make a stink about it because it would go against their brand, and their brand is success. So Magic and P. Diddy are pretty much victims in this as well. They are pretty much victims in this as well

because they weren't given enough to succeed. You don't... Well, in fact, I know for a fact that... At the level they should. Well, I know for a fact when TV One launched the investment, Jonathan Rodgers had $130 million. Jonathan Rodgers was the founding CEO. Yes.

Had $130 million to build it over four years. I know for a fact that when Revolt actually launched, they had $65 million. And one of the issues, based on people I know who worked there, is that Revolt was undercapitalized from the beginning. Uh, and... And didn't get enough support from Comcast.

Did not. How do you... How are you not gonna give them Philadelphia or high enough subfeeds? I mean, you know, Google it. March of 2018, P. Diddy, who I think is phenomenal and he's a great businessman, he had to, you know, lay off, March of 2018, P. Diddy, who I think is phenomenal and he's a great businessman, he had to, you know, lay off a third of his staff. And it wasn't his fault.

He was positioned to fail. And when you get into the details of what they did or did not do, you can only get there with discovery. You need people to come in and testify. They were in the room. Here's what they saw. Here's what they asked for.

Here's what they said. Here's what the asked for. Here's what they said. Here's what the contracts say. You're able to show other networks that are getting infinitely more support. If you are so right, then why are you trying to eviscerate this civil rights statute so that we can't even go forth

and bring discovery? I want you to respond to this. John Hope Bryant, Operation Hope, talks about silver rights. Talks about black folks not getting the memo. Dropped a video on Facebook last night and said that this is really a economic case for the individual versus a civil rights case. And so I wanna play that.

I wanna get your thoughts to it. Go to my iPad, please. There are black owned companies who got the contract and there's this one that didn't, it either is, I don't like you, and that could be racist, or you didn't meet some objective criteria, which might be demand, in other words, people wanting to subscribe to your business, that doesn't meet the minimum bar for our company. And a company like Comcast or whoever you want to pick, AT&T, whoever, you know, whatever company you want to pick,

is going to be a different bar than, say, Joe's Cable Company in Lower Mississippi. In other words, if a local cable company or a local company is going to have a different bar, a different criteria, than a regional company, a national company, and a global company. And if you want to do business with them, you've got to meet the criteria. I get it all the time.

People are like, you know, John, I love you, but, you know, if you want to be a big baller, only in real estate is $100 million not a big number. They're like, you can't, $100 million is not enough. I've got to grow this to $500 million to $1 billion in order to have the impact for my people I want and my own business plan, which is why I'm continuing to grow my platform. This is my for-profit. Of course, not my non-profit. They're completely 100% separate, separate business teams,

but management teams, all that kind of stuff. And so if you want to have impact, you have to have scale, right? And if you want to have scale, if you want to keep stepping up, there's different criteria for different folks in different strokes. So I think this is a commercial dispute. I think that it is wrongly placed to say that this is going to send black folks back 150 years. It's just, I don't think, respectfully not true. Why? Because there's already a Kathy Hughes, there's already a Bob Johnson, there's already a dozen companies that you can cite that have done business with all these companies, including Comcast. So this, if that, if race was the only issue,

then none of them would have done a deal. How are they doing a deal with somebody else? Isn't, you know, maybe it's product, maybe it's content. Maybe people just don't like them. Maybe they don't like the way he does business. I don't know. It's not my bill, but that's just a commercial dispute. Don't drag the entire black culture into this dispute in this way. I think it's a distraction from things that are really, truly important. I respect Mr. Allen. I think he's doing a business.

Response. Listen, I would be the first to say don't bring this civil rights statute into the United States Supreme Court. And I didn't. Comcast did. They decided to challenge that statute and how it was used and how it was applied. You filed a lawsuit based upon using the statute. Using the statute. They are the ones who said,

we're going to go after the statute, eviscerate it, and dismantle it. And I disagree with him. Uh, he doesn't know the entire history. You know. You know before the... There was, uh, TV One, there was something called the Black Family Channel. But the difference between the Black Family Ch... Before that, what they actually called

Major Broadcasting Cable Network. That's right, but before the Black Family... Now they work for them. Right, but before the Black Family Channel, which was all 100% African-American owned, it was four African-American entrepreneurs who got crushed by Comcast, and they got pushed out of the way, and they wrote up a lawsuit that I...

that they never filed and I saw, and you know who... who owned a major chunk of TV One. Who owned a major chunk of... Oh, Comcast. Okay, so... And in fact, at Rainbow Push, um, I forgot the year, but I actually have the video.

Yes. Kathy Hughes actually complained... Yeah, okay....in a keynote speech. Yes. Uh, like I say, I got the video, but I actually have the video. Kathy Hughes actually complained in a keynote speech. Yes. Like I say, I got the video, and I was at home. Right. She complained that it was unfair for TV One in order for them to launch the network

that they had to give a sizable equity stake to Comcast. I also know, I also know, and again, for folks who don't realize it, just so y'all understand, Like he doesn't realize it. Just for the folks who don't know. You know, but he's speaking on something he doesn't know. And that's the problem. You have too many black folks who just

don't know. And don't know enough to say nothing. He doesn't know. So go ahead and school him. So just for the folks at home, again, who don't understand how these things happen, first of all, you used to have laws that prevented

networks from owning distribution outlets. Then it was called, then you have FinCEN. Those laws were all separated. Go ahead. Now you have studios that are able to produce shows and also sell those shows. And so what happened is, and I can tell you,

I was on one of those calls, a major broadcasting cable network. There were two LLCs that owned NBC. The Willie Gary LLC was Cecil Field with Spencer

and Evander Holyfield. That was a separate Alvin James and Marlon Jackson. That's right. And there was a meeting with DirecTV and DirecTV wanted an equity stake in NBC

in order to carry them on their system. That's right. And actually, the reason, just so y'all also know, the reason Dish, to this day, does not carry TV One is because Charlie Ergen believed that he was given an opportunity for an equity stake in TV One, and Alfred Liggins chose to give that equity stake

to DirecTV, and Ergen, to this day, has refused to put TV One on Dish. I know this for a fact. And so, and that's one of the reasons why a lot of the cable systems have equity stakes in the cable networks. That's right. Because they essentially said,

in order for you to get carriage, we got to get an equity stake in your company. And what happened with Comcast and TV one so yeah come get that and then eventually TV one did a billion did a debt buyout but Comcast owned a major own about 40% of TV one and TV one took them out took a lot of dollars in debt took on a lot of debt to buy them out. Right. Okay, I would be the first to say they never should have owned one piece of that network. It was African-American targeted,

and it was African-American owned. And that company took on crippling debt because of how Comcast was predatory towards them. Now, if you simply look at all the money they pull out of the black community and what they don't do with us, then that's what I'm saying. Mr. Bryant, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He is ill-informed. And that is a great example because you and I know the real DNA of TV One that Comcast said, if you want to be on our platform, we have to own 40% of you. And then they had to take on a great deal of debt

to buy that 40% back. And now the market cap is under $100 million of this publicly traded company because of the enormous amount of debt. And Kathy Hughes is a phenomenal entrepreneur along with Alfred, they're terrific. But you can only get so far with that kind of debt. And that debt goes back to Comcast being predatory,

which is why Mr. Bryant doesn't know. He doesn't even know how much money they're spending on licensing content. He doesn't know how little we get. He doesn't know how much... Tell me what we're paying into their system. Tell me the market cap of Comcast. It's $200 billion.

Most of the money they get from cable subscribers are African-American. You cannot be the number one African-American provider, the number one provider of cable, without hooking up all the black cities. So, I mean, listen, I know he means well, but there are just a lot of folks who just don't know enough not to speak up

because they just don't know. When you filed a lawsuit, you were highly critical of the NAACP, National Urban League, Reverend Al Sharpton. I don't know if he means well, but there are just a lot of folks who just don't know enough not to speak up because they just don't know. When you filed a lawsuit, you were highly critical of the NAACP, National Urban League, Reverend Al Sharpton. Yeah, let's speak on that. So they talk about that. So they say, he filed, you know, he sued, you know, these folks. Well, what I was suing was, I was saying that the Urban League and these folks, they did an MOU,

a Memorandum of Understanding as to what black people will live by, right? But what they didn't tell black people is that David Cohen of Comcast sits on their board of-of-of the Urban League. What they didn't tell black people is that Comcast gives the Urban League a million dollars. So, what you should tell black people...

A million total, a million a year? A million a year. What you should tell black people is A million total, a million a year? A million a year. Okay. What you should tell black people is that there is a conflict of interest. I'm getting money from Comcast, and that is controlling my behavior. Or it may not be... It may be controlling my behavior.

You need to tell black people, I did a deal on your behalf with somebody who pays me. And the reason I sued them is because President Obama fought hard to achieve net neutrality. Who spoke out against net neutrality, Roland? Let them know. Was it the company?

Was it the Urban League? Did they speak out against net neutrality? Yes or no? The answer is yes. Tell the people that. Yes. But net neutrality, you need that. Because if you don't have net neutrality,

you don't have video coming out of Ferguson. But why did David Cohen of Comcast want them to speak out against net neutrality? Because it challenged his business. It challenged cable. He doesn't want you watching video over the Internet. He wants you watching video through his cable networks. And so here is the Urban League

speaking out against net neutrality? That's like saying black people don't need food, water, and he wants you watching video through his cable networks. And so here is the Urban League speaking out against net neutrality? That's like saying black people don't need food, water, and oxygen. So I sued to say, don't go out here and negotiate on behalf of black people without black people giving you that permission and without you telling black people

that you're getting a million bucks from David Cohen on your board from Comcast, and you're doing things like speaking out against net neutrality. I'm not gonna allow that to happen. So I sued to put them in check to protect black people. That was the reason I did it. So they didn't like it, but guess what?

They know I'm watching, and they... I've also told them, every time you step out, I'm gonna sue you I've also told them, every time you step out, I'm going to sue you. Here's the difference. I have a staff of lawyers who work only for me, litigators. So it's easy for me to sue people. I can bankrupt these guys. I mean, I don't want to hurt them.

They're not my target. I could sue them every week. But I want to make it clear, you're going to have to do the right thing because what you're doing, you're hurting black people. That's what you're doing by taking these donations. And this is what I said to Tom Rutledge. Tom Rutledge, who runs Charter.

I said to Tom Rutledge, and I talked about this on The Breakfast Club, and I talked about this at my website, The Griot. I said, Tom, he said, well, you sued me, but I said, Tom, I sued you when I saw you with Al Sharpton in a photo in the newspaper, and you said, I've got an MOU with black people. I negotiated it with Al Sharpton and the Urban League. And I said, Tom, who is the white man

that speaks for all white people? And if that white man doesn't exist, why do you think there is a black man who speaks for me and all black people? Why do you think there is a black man who speaks for me and all black people? Why do you think there's some head black native that speaks for all the black natives? That is a racist idea. And that MOU is a racist, fraudulent document.

So you believe that civil rights organizations should not be entering into these type of MOUs. Not if they're getting money from the person they're negotiating with. You have to disclose that. They got to say to you, Roland, Roland, I'm about to enter into a deal with Comcast. And oh, by the way, Roland, David Cohen sits on my board and I get a million dollars a year from him. So you're saying that had that MOU been signed and... With no money going back and forth to those...

With no money going back and forth, you believe that would have been far more representative of the interests of African Americans... Yes. ...as opposed to money going to those specific organizations? That's right. I probably would have been cool with it. I probably would have said, you didn't get any money from them? I'm cool with it.

But if you get money from them, I'm not cool with it. I probably would have said, you didn't get any money from them? I'm cool with it. But if you get money from them, I'm not cool with it. Because you didn't disclose it. Or do you believe that essentially that money is payoff for you agreeing to the merger? I sued them because I believe that money is a way

to control your behavior. Why are you speaking out against net neutrality? I mean, look, let me tell you who Comcast is, okay? Let me tell you who they are. So once again, Mr. Bryant is totally out to lunch, has no clue as to what he's speaking about. He doesn't even know who they are. Let me tell you who they are.

These are the same people who got caught by some very smart engineers in Northern California for deploying BitTurrent, a software to slow video down over the Internet. And when they got caught, the FCC said, this is in violation of all kinds of federal laws. Personally, I think people should have

gone to jail for that. Okay? And the... And Comcast said to the... And the FCC hit them with a $20 million fine. And Comcast said to the FCC, F you. You don't police the Internet, and I'm not paying the fine. And I think even sued the FCC not to pay it.

That's who they are, okay? That's just one example of who they are. When they went to go get that merger done, to the approval to buy NBC Universal, you go to the FCC. There's the chairman and five commissioners. One of the commissioners, Meredith Atwell Baker, voted for the merger, voted for the merger,

and then three months later took a job with Comcast. Okay? That's what you're dealing with. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg had to sue Comcast. Why did he have to sue Comcast? As part of the condition for the merger to buy NBCUniversal? Okay. They said, hey, Comcast, you own CNBC, a business channel. You need to take Michael Bloomberg's business channel

and put it next to CNBC. They ignored that consent decree, and Michael Bloomberg had to sue because they took CNBC. They ignored that consent decree, and Michael Bloomberg had to sue, because they took CNBC, put it on channel 50, and then they took Michael Bloomberg's channel and put it on channel 950. He had to go sue them

to go get his channel put near their channel. This is who they are. These are, you know, look, like I said, David Cohen has compensation of about 20 million a year. He has 125 million a year as a budget. 125 million a year as a budget. They're only number three after tobacco and defense

to pay off civil rights organizations and politicians to keep the, you know, to do what they want. What are you doing that you're a cable operator, you have to spend that kind of money lobbying? This is not, this is you're a cable operator. So, at the end of the day, why go after this civil rights statute and eviscerate

it and know he's incorrect. If they go and they make this a but for, then they have a right to discriminate against him and he will never get a lawyer to defend himself. What do you say, and I've had folks who reach out to me, what do you say to people who say,

Byron don't give a damn about black folks. All of a sudden, now he's pro-black? What do you respond to those critics? Because they're there. And be there, and you should be there. But you should also be there with everybody, including your so-called civil rights organization. Take me out

of it. You can say whatever you want to say about me. And I can't control what you say about me. This is not about me. This is bigger than me. This is, what are you going to do to protect your civil rights? What are you going to do to protect your civil rights? So when your critics say

this is Byron trying to enrich himself... No, no, but I want to speak to that. But I want to give the answer that I want that I think is the healthy answer. Don't get into Byron's this, not black enough, black here, wasn't black there, blah, blah, blah. That's all nuttiness, okay? This is not about

that. This is about what are you going to do about your civil rights? Now let's look at my company right and my resources and look at what I've done I could have used my resources to do a lot of things but what did I do first thing I put on is a Monday through Friday show I put on six judges six of them daily for an hour. Judge Ross, Judge Karen, Judge Hatchett, Judge Maybelline, Judge Christina Perez. Five hours a day, black and brown people,

as judges, running things. That's an amazing image, right? What's a better image than sitting there on the court and running things? Five hours a day. I invest millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, distribute, and promote those images of African Americans. NBC Universal, they've got talk shows

where black men are dancing around going, hey, I'm not the baby daddy. Hey, it's not math DNA came back, I'm not the baby daddy. Now, this is what I've said to white executives. I said to a guy, I said, he said, why does it need to be black-owned and not black-targeted? I said, because, listen, I said,

you have your daughter and mine, right? I said, would you okay, are you okay if I control her image, how she's produced and depicted and seen around the world? Can I control her self-esteem? He said, no. I said, why can't you control mine, my daughter's? You know, that's why I have a seat at the table.

I have to have a seat at the table. So when you look at nobody on planet Earth, 7 billion people on this planet, has put forth stronger, positive black images than me, five hours a day of judges. That's not by accident. That's by design. Because I don't want to just see black men dancing

that they're not the baby daddy. But I don't need to answer that and, you know, defend that, because it's just ridiculous. It's just ridiculous. And it doesn't matter. What matters... It doesn't matter what you think of Byron Allen. The only thing that matters, if you want to have an intelligent conversation,

what are you going to do to protect your civil rights? I didn't bring this to the Supreme Court. They did. And they brought it in partnership with Donald Trump. The same Donald Trump who had to sign the largest racial discrimination and housing lawsuit settlement

with the United States government, who brought the lawsuit against him. That's who Comcast partnered with and then walked into a courtroom and said, take our... some of our time and plead against these, plead against this civil rights statute and let's bring black people back to 1865. See, he is ill-advised and he's not on point

because, listen, they get us in the schoolroom and they get us in the boardroom and they get us in the courtroom long before he gets choked to death in the street. So I ask you, so you talked about those five hours of programming, moving forward. Yeah. As you've gone through this, any plans for a black news network,

entertainment network, any plans to expand? The Griot? You said you own the Griot. I own the Griot. Any plans to expand that, to build it out? We're gonna invest heavily in the Griot. We're gonna invest heavily in that and build that up. Because you've owned it for how long?

I've owned the Griot now, I don't even know, a couple of years. I bought it maybe three, four years ago. I don't remember. That's what I've been spending more of my time, buying companies. And I've been buying companies. As you know, I bought the Weather Channel last year. And, you know, we got them back on Verizon. We won our first Emmy.

We've had our highest ratings since 2012. You know, that's been phenomenal. That asset has been a phenomenal acquisition for us. We bought a movie distribution company. We've been buying television stations. We now have 15 television stations in 11 markets. We're planning, you know, at this point, we will be the largest owner of Big Four Network affiliates in the world. Uh, we'll probably have achieved that goal within 36 months, big four network affiliates,

ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. Uh, we're in real estate, you know, we're going to go into banking. Um, we're not going to just be held to media. So we will be, you know, media, real estate banking, because at the end of the day, this is, you know, this is an opportunity to really achieve that fourth and final chapter that Coretta told us, that this is the reason Martin Luther King was killed. Martin Luther King was killed because he was pushing for economic inclusion.

And, you know, it's so ironic when, you know, he sits there and says, this is commercial. It's like one of the things that's going, this is commercial, da-da-da. It's like one of the things that's going on here, and this was one of the issues that I had with President Obama, and I said to President Obama, I've given you money, and my money has strings attached. You spent $700 billion to bail out the banks.

I want you to audit the banks and see if they're lending money to African-American entrepreneurs like Mr. Bryant. And he wouldn't do that. And I said, the other issue I have with you, Mr. President, because I knew that African-Americans were not getting bank loans for business loans and home loans. I said, the United States government has a pension fund that's over a trillion dollars, over a T. And not one African American manages one penny of that money. And the reason why I sued to make sure that we opened this pathway is so guys like him don't struggle

and they get access to capital, and they can actually not talk about having scale, but actually have scale. What happens if you... I have scale. I know how to get scale. And I know that there are a lot of wonderful African-American entrepreneurs out there that are going to get flushed down the toilet because they're positioned to fail

and they're never going to achieve scale. They'll dream about it. They will talk about it. But the way the game is rigged and the way the game is positioned, they're positioned to fail. I have achieved scale. And I'm sitting here saying, hey, black community, this is how you do it.

The door is closed, and I'm gonna tell you how you bob and weave around that. Because by the way, if I wanted to, I could say nothing. And I could keep my mouth shut. And if, like my mother always says, listen to what they don't say. Listen to who's got a lot of money and they're not saying a word. Those are the ones you need to ask what's going on. What happens if the court doesn't rule in your favor?

What do you do? I think they're going to rule. Well, first of all, let me be really clear. They pretty much... This is what I've always said day one. Day one, I've always said this. Always said this. Our case is going forward.

And they pretty much said that today on the bench. Hey, this case needs to go forward. I've always said my case is going forward. I've been out here doing all these talk shows. So, Gil, hold on. People who are watching, the Supreme Court rules in your favor does not mean that you win the case. Yes, that's right.

They're ruling in the favor that I can go forward with my case against Comcast and start to get discovery and start to show that they're not doing business with African Americans in a fair and equitable way. That P. Diddy should have Philadelphia. P. Diddy should have 20 million subs,

not less than 10 million subs. His sub fees should be doubled. There are other people who don't even get sub fees. That they should be positioned to succeed, not fail. So my lawsuit is going forward. And I've always said I have brought forth enough evidence for it to go forward. My lawyers are the best in the business.

They always put forth my case at the but-for standard, the higher standard. So whether they choose motivating factor or but-for, I'm going forward. It was Comcast who chose to challenge the Civil Rights Statute of 1866. So I started doing every radio show and talk show to speak to black Americans and say,

our civil rights are under siege. My case was always going forward. What I want to do is protect the Civil Rights Act of 1866 because I want to make sure the door isn't shut to you and that brother sitting there who doesn't quite know what he's talking about. Last question.

Keep asking me questions. I like hanging out with you. No, no, I got you. It's the internet. We can hang here all night. My crew got to go home. They're not complaining. I flew all the way from LA I flew all the way from LA. Now, now here's the deal. I flew all the way from LA to hang out with you.

And you got like, OK, last question. What you got? I would be more than happy to take your check to pay them. You know what I'm saying? Come on. Take it with us. I'm just saying. I'll be more, because I ain't got Byron Allen's money.

I am right here. I'm ready to hang out with you. I'm having a good time, bro. I'm a big fan of yours. I appreciate it. I want you to bring it. I want ready to hang out with you. I'm having a good time, bro. I'm a big fan of yours. I appreciate it. I want you to bring it. I appreciate it. I want you to bring the hard questions,

because if you bring the hard questions, then I want everybody in America to innately understand what's going on. Dr. King told us two Americas cannot survive. That's what got him killed, that speech, the other America. There are two Americas. What does it matter if I can sit at the same lunch counter as my white

counterpart and I cannot afford the same hamburger? And what's really important is he said that over 50 years ago and it's as if he wrote it yesterday. And what has to happen now, because we have all, we have half the women in this country living at or below the poverty line. At or below.

Half. Okay? You have over two and a half million kids in this country living at or below the poverty line. At or below. Half. Okay? You have over two and a half million kids in this country that are homeless. Okay? We only have 330 million people in this country. Only have 330 million people in this country out of a global population of 7 billion people. And as the global population goes from 7 billion to 10 billion, the bottom 5 billion are going gonna get wiped out because we don't have enough food, water, and resources to support the bottom 5 billion. They will perish.

You have global warming, climate change. Mother Nature's going to just obliviate the bottom 5 billion. Now, here is the problem. China, China has the equivalent of two-thirds of our country in college. 200 million kids in college. And everybody knows the capital will eventually follow

the intellectual capital. They're developing intellectual capital at a much faster rate. So what are we saying there? We're saying exactly what Martin Luther King told us, taught us over 50 years ago. And this is what we have to come to grips with. White America, white America, white America is no longer enough

to compete globally. And white America has 99% of the wealth in America. So white America has the most to lose as we sink globally. And every day, we're sinking, and white America is losing the most. Now, for white America to survive, white America now has to make sure

every American is fully engaged, and every American has access to a real education, and every American has access to a real education, and every American has access to capital, and every American is bringing their A game, so we are competing globally to maintain our position and our wealth. And what we now, now what we have to do- I'm not sure they wanna do that. Oh, but hold on.

It's a matter of survival for white Americans. So this isn't a black problem. This isn't a white problem. This is an American problem. And as Martin Luther King taught us, we have to have one America. And we're now at that point where we must achieve that in order for this country to maintain the status that we currently have. We have to achieve one America,

and every American has to be fully engaged and fully positioned to succeed and to keep our position in this global economy. Have the other black owners of networks communicated with you and said, we stand with you? Uh... You said that's a hard question.

That's a hard question. No, it's not a hard question. Let me just say yes. Let me say yes. They know who they are. They know what they're not getting. They know. Everybody...

Look, this is why this is a historic case. We're not going to have this conversation again. This is our reciprocity. This is why we didn't get 40 acres and a mule. The greatest trade deficit in America is the trade deficit between America and black America. America's not doing business with black America anywhere. Now you have this law to level the playing field and get them to the table.

And now that you can get them to the table and say, guys, we got to correct this, because this is economic genocide. You're not doing business with us the way we do business with you, and people in our neighborhoods are dying. You know, you're making sure we have plenty of gangs and drugs and alcohol,

and, you know, we don't have enough books for our kids. So now we're going to start to deal with the fourth and final chapter. That's what this is. Yes, it started as a commercial dispute, but they, Comcast, escalated it to a civil rights dispute because I never would have challenged. And I told them, I said, don't do this. Now, here's the thing. I don't believe we should boycott Comcast and I don't believe we should dismantle Comcast. I don't believe... But they have upset civil rights organizations, and they have upset every civil rights organization

without exception. And those civil rights organizations and politicians are completely dedicated to breaking them up and going after their top advertisers and boycotting their top advertisers if they advertise with any of the Comcast networks. I know that from all of them. They have lit these civil rights organizations up like a Christmas tree. That was not the intent. I have tried to get them to the table.

I have said, guys, let's get to the table, let's work this out like a commercial dispute. Let's work this out. Charter said to my government relations person, we're not gonna talk to Byron because we don't negotiate with terrorists. Okay? You know what my government relations person said? David is white, and David said,

look, I represent Charlie Ergen. Charlie Ergen is white, and he runs Dish. And Charlie's far more aggressive than Byron. Uh, yeah, Charlie Ergen is one and he runs Dish. And Charlie's far more aggressive than Byron. Yeah, Charlie Ergen is one of the most aggressive people in the table business. And I love Charlie. He's a good guy for me. With me, I do a lot of business with Charlie, okay?

And Charlie is a good guy and he's tough. And he says, you know, I've seen Charlie be much tougher with you than Byron. And you've never called him a terrorist. See, that's what happens. If a white man walks in and he's tough and he negotiates and just hold his... hold his ground and takes what he believes belongs to him,

that's business. That's just a shrewd guy. If you do it, Roland, you are a terrorist. That's a racist statement right there. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Like, are you kidding me? But that's fine. We're gonna push through that. We're going to... When I sued Charter, when I sued Charter, Charter had a board of directors

of 11 white guys. 11 white guys. And I said to them, dude, really? 11 white guys got together every 90 days and said, this feels right to me? These guys, these knuckleheads didn't even have somebody that represented 60% of the global population.

A woman. A woman. Let alone get the first base, somebody African American or Asian or gay or Hispanic or whatever. Like, they didn't even have a chief diversity officer when I sued them. Truth of the matter is, I'm making these companies better. And I'm not talking about it. I'm using legal action to force them to do it. And after they do it'm making these companies better. And I'm not talking about it. I'm using legal action to force them to do it. And when after they do it, then they're better.

They're better. When you look at, when we talk about, when I look at jobs, look at opportunities. Yes. Are you, are you looking at Hollywood, looking at this entertainment industry,

looking at the media industry and saying, I'm going to make sure that I am using my platform to elevate black talent? And is it intentional in terms of operational roles, P&L responsibilities? I already have. I already have. I don't...

I already have. That's a... Like I just said, who... Seven billion people on the planet. Who puts on five hours a day of some of the most positive African-American images out there? Five hours a day of judges running... And what I'm also talking about... And behind the scenes as well.

That's the easy part. I'm going to production companies. I'm going to, again, because, like, look, we had... NABJ with a meeting today with AT&T. One of the things I talked about there was, I said, look, creating opportunities for black media entrepreneurs, not just black folks who are in front of the camera, I said, but, because at the end of the day,

who controls the narrative? That's it. Roland, I'm easy. I'm easy, but I'm not enough. That's what the lawsuits are about. You need everybody. And before I forget, I want to thank Senator Kamala Harris, who generated the government amicus brief,

and she got Senator Booker to sign it, Senator Bloomingfield to sign it, Senator Wyden, and eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus. And I'm highly confident pretty much everybody in the Congressional Black Caucus is going to lean in now. I want to thank Congressman Bobby Rush, who was amazing. That letter that he wrote, and he made it very clear

this is unacceptable, and he's calling for the breakup of Comcast. Once again, you know, I'm not asking for that, but he is steadfast on that. Also, Dr. Bernice King. She's amazing. This is one of the first times we've heard Martin Luther King's daughter speak out.

Her letter was heart-wrenching when she wrote an open letter to Brian Roberts and said, what are you doing? This is what my... My father died over this, and my mother dedicated her life to this. So, I mean, this is unnecessary. And I also want to thank Dara Johnson,

the president of the NAACP, because I sued the NAACP because they signed that MOU. And, but that MOU was under that... The NAACP, that was Ben Jealous. And Ben Jealous sat... Ben Jealous apologized to me for signing that MOU and said, I'm sorry, brother, I thought I was doing the right thing.

I said, I forgive you, I'm not upset with you. I love Ben Jealous. He just didn't know what he didn't know. Okay? We just have a number of folks out here you just don't know what you don't know. Right? But Derrick Johnson at the NAACP,

he has really gone out there and he's pushing hard. And I have a lot of faith in Derrick Johnson. And I love that brother and I'm supporting him. And he's a fellow Detroiter. So, I mean, look, at the end of of the day we can pretend like it's this or we can pretend it's like it's that but the end of the day I don't want over 100 million of minorities in this country to wake up and go what happened with my civil rights? What happened? Well they went to the Supreme Court and nobody

told you and they just rolled you back. So, you know, this is important. Well, it is something that I definitely explain to people that I use all the time that if you go to Washington, D.C., there's only one federal agency that shares a loan with the White House. That's the Department of Treasury. Yep. You want to understand America, power and money, money and power. Yep. And what often happens is that when we have these discussions about what African Americans need, typically what happens, and I was in Indianapolis a few weeks ago with the state of black America, and we focused on economics,

we often talk about civil rights, mass incarceration, police brutality, and money and economic power is not in that top five. That's what you need. At the end of the day, without money, you can't even control your own politics. That's it. You need an education and you need money. And that's why I got upset

with Obama and I said, look, if you audit the banks to see if they're lending money to black people, African Americans, you will see we're not getting it because at the end of the day, that's why under President Obama, unemployment went down for white America but went up for black

America. And homeownership under Obama hit a 25 year low. That screams we're not getting access to capital. African Americans, we're brilliant, we're resourceful. It's real simple. We're being asked to run the same race as our white counterpart without any tennis shoes. All we're saying is,

can we get a pair of tennis shoes so we can run this race? And if we get a pair of tennis shoes, we're going to do just fine on that track. And that's, we need access to capital. That's what this is about. And this civil rights statute is going to upholding this civil rights statute. And by the way, there isn't a coincidence that now that we're starting to use the civil rights statute, they have to reevaluate it and see if it's ambiguous because it's been used to the tune. I've used it in three lawsuits and $40 billion. So now we're going to use this statute so we can make sure that we have economic inclusion for all Americans, especially African Americans,

the furthest left behind, and we achieve the fourth and final chapter, which is one America. One America. That's what we're going to do here. All right. We do have to go. Byron Allen. Are you going to hang with me? Because I don't know anybody here in D.C. Are you going to hang with me? Come on, Roland. But they got to go home. No, no, no. We can hang. You're going to hang with me? Come on, Roland.

But they got to go home. Okay, everybody got to go home. Before we go, I got to do this here. Today, of course, is the... You're going to take me to dinner? Yeah, you're going to pick the check up. Oh, come on. Plus, we got a chef right there.

We got my man Marcus from the Breakfast Club in Houston. There you go. So he can whip something up. I'm hanging with Roland Martin. We got to do this here, folks. Yesterday, I told you my nephew, Chris, turned 12 years old yesterday. Well, today, he got to do this here, folks. Yesterday, I told you my nephew Chris turned 12 years old yesterday. Well, today, go to my iPad. Happy birthday.

His daddy, Reginald Martin, my brother, Reginald Martin Jr., turns 52 years old today. That's not your nephew. That's an old nephew. That's my brother. Oh, I was going to say, man, that's an old nephew. Your nephew's got a beard. His son's birthday was yesterday.

His birthday is today. My birthday is tomorrow. Happy birthday. So shout out. Happy 52nd birthday. What are you, 21? My brother, 51. You're 51. So Reginald Martin Jr. is tomorrow. Happy birthday. So shout out. Happy 52nd birthday. What are you, 21? You're 21? 51.

You're 51. So Reginald Martin Jr. is 52. He's, of course, executive chef in Houston and owns and runs our family catering business, LeMond Catering. LeMond Catering? Which my grandmother started. In Houston? In H-Town.

I love it. In H-Town. Happy birthday to my, it's hard to be called big brother. He's only one year, one day older than me. He's the big brother. No, no, no. You've got to have, to me, like a five-year gap. Five to ten years.

You've got to have like a five-year gap. I love it. People as well. We're twins, so it's all good. So happy birthday. And so, all right, folks, don't forget, we live streamed the HBCU rally today in Maryland. Why do we do that?

Because that was important to us. We can do that on a black-owned platform. I don't have to ask anybody's permission to to us. We can do that on a black-owned platform. I don't have to ask anybody's permission to do so. We cover what we want to cover, and that's what's important. And so we want you to support what we do. Join our Bring the Funk fan club, so go to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. You can have Cash App, PayPal, Square.

Every dollar you give goes to support what we do. We're going to be in Atlanta next week for the Democratic debate taking place at Talapeira Studios. Again, this is about us controlling our destiny, but also I keep saying, we've going to be in Atlanta next week for the Democratic debate taking place at Tyler Perry Studios. Again, this is about us controlling our destiny, but also I keep saying we've got to fund our freedom. And so we need you to support us in what we do. So please go to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Tell a friend to support us. Also, we're 3,000 away from having 400,000 subscribers on our YouTube channel. We thought we would hit 400,000 by the middle of next year. We're gonna hit that by next week, so please subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Thanks to our panelists today. Thank you to everybody who's watched this show. I shall see you guys tomorrow, right here, Rolling Mark Unfiltered. Ho! Thank you. this is an iHeart podcast