#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 11.15 RMU; Rodney Reed execution stayed; Myles Garrett suspended; Roger Stone guilty on all counts

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

11.15.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed's execution stayed; Browns' Myles Garrett suspended; Roger Stone found guilty on all counts; Trump attacks former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch during impeachment hearing and she responds in real time; #TrumpLiesMatter: WH summary of first phone call with newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a lie; Mayor Pete may have lied about supporters for his Douglass Plan for Black America. #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 - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: AFSCME AFSCME is the nation's largest and fastest growing public services employees union with more than 1.6 million active and retired members. Visit https://www.afscme.org to learn how we make America happen. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. It was so crazy. It's funny to see it from both sides. Thank you. 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen

1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk vanilleekarmen 1 tsk. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami

1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami

1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami

1 tbs. salami 1 tbs. salami 1 tbs vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille

1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille Să facem o pătrunjelă. I'm going to make a Martin! 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille

1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille 1 tsk vanille

1 tsk vanille We'll be right back. Today is Friday, November 15th, 2019. And coming up, I'm Roland Martin, Unfiltered Breaking News. The parole board in Texas votes unanimously to the governor of Texas, Governor Abbott, to test the evidence in the case of Rodney Reed. Also, the Texas Court of Appeals also rules in Rodney Reed's favor. He was due to be executed in Texas on Wednesday. We'll give you the latest details in this stunning turnabout in his case. A lot of discussion today about my Aggie, Miles Garrett,

playing for the Cleveland Browns, suspended indefinitely for hitting Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph in the head with his helmet. Not only will he not play this year in the playoffs if they make it, he will have to apply for reinstatement next year. What in the world is going on for Miles Garrett? Also today, Roger Stone, he once said, I dare you to indict me. Today, he was convicted. Several counts lying to Congress and witness tampering. Oh, it's amazing how many people behind Trump are headed to federal prison. Speaking of Donald Trump, he actually lashed out at a witness as she was testifying today before Congress. You do know that they now can add witness intimidation

to the charges against Trump to impeach him. Speaking of that, the White House, y'all, released a document. This is pretty hilarious. Released a document summarizing Trump's first phone call the newly elected president of the Ukraine. Here was the problem. It was a big-ass lie. I'll explain.

And it turns out Mayor Pete Buttigieg may have lied about his supporters for his Douglas plan for black America. A South Carolina official said, I never endorsed it. And why is Politico going after Kamala Harris again and saying her campaign is in shambles? Really?

It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. 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 Roland Martin Rolling with Roland now He's funky, he's fresh, he's real The best you know, he's fresh, he's real the best, you know he's rolling, Martin.

Breaking news out of Texas. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended today the execution of Rodney Reed be delayed 120 days. It was a unanimous vote by the seven-member parole board to give a reprieve to Reed, who was scheduled to die by lethal injection on Wednesday for the 1996 killing of 19-year-old Stacey Stites. Now, supporters of Reed say newly uncovered evidence raises serious doubts about his guilt. The board's recommendation goes to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has remained silent about the case. But also, in addition to that decision, the Texas Court of Appeals also weighed in on this. And that is, so his execution received a stay by order of the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals and so it doesn't matter what Greg Abbott does this execution has now been stayed I'm going to read from this I don't have time to even pull up on my iPad folks it says the actual innocence claims satisfy the requirements of the specified article. Accordingly, we remand those claims to the trial court for further development. We further find that the Honorable Doug Shaver continues to sit by assignment as the judge of the 21st Judicial District Court of Bastrop County for applicant's case. If Judge Shaver chooses to discontinue his assignment in the case, then the regional presiding judge, the Honorable Olin Underwood, shall appoint or otherwise determine who is assigned to this case. Applicant's execution

is stayed pending further order of this court that was handed down just today. This is significant news. The innocent predator of Texas has been fighting on behalf of Reed. Reed says that he was engaged in a consensual relationship with Stites. Her former boyfriend was a police officer, and Reed claims that that officer was the one who was last seen spending time with her. This is an amazing case. Again, coming out of Texas, he was scheduled to be executed on Wednesday. A lot of folks across the country, many, of course, entertainers and other activists have been calling for a stay in this execution.

Joining us right now, Joseph Williams, senior editor of U.S. News & World Report, Lawn Victoria Burke, NNPA, and also Julian Boykin, founder and chairman, Young Republicans of Southern Maryland. Joseph, when we look at this case here, we just had the case in Georgia where the man was executed on Wednesday. Claims of innocence, they refused to test the DNA. You have this case right here where they also claim

that if they test the DNA, I think it's a belt in some piece of evidence in a safety deposit box, they say will show that his DNA was not on there. What is still stunning to me is when you have these DAs who refuse to test evidence, and here's the piece, if you did it and his DNA is on it, no problem in a conversation. Yeah. But they would rather they would rather sit here and fight these things versus ensure and if the person was guilty, that you have the right person who's in prison. Well, it's not surprising at all. I mean, this is part of the police prosecutor access, you know, police prosecutor and judicial access. They don't like to be proven wrong,

and they don't like to have people order them to prove that they're right. So it's not, unfortunately, it's not an uncommon thing. I mean, this is just one of the cases that we know about where the prosecutor and the DA and the cops may have gotten it wrong. And moreover, if her ex-boyfriend is a police officer and is probably a reasonable risk to be assumed to be a suspect, that's reason number 18 out of probably reason, you know, 200 to 300 reasons why they don't want to go back and reopen this case. It's not surprising. They protect their own. They tend to protect their own, and this is probably a lot more common than we think. This is what is amazing here, Lauren. The board was supposed to vote on Monday. The chairman moved this vote up. I'm born and raised in Texas. It ain't normal for this board to vote

unanimously on something like this here. That ain't normal in Texas. Right. That says a whole lot about how powerful this new evidence is. Well, absolutely. Well, the entire thing is a lesson on the importance of, obviously, due process. It is pretty shocking that people are less interested, they're more interested in personal reputation and ego and being seen as right than they are and finding out what the truth is and not executing the wrong person? I mean, why would that be a minor thing? I have no idea. But we've seen this before, you know, time and time again, where people have not wanted to really find out what the truth was.

They wanted to sort of just proceed without knowing. And I get it that there's some prosecutor, there's some DA sitting back there that does want to be proven wrong in public on a big case that has gone viral, has gone national. But why would you want to be a part of the case where you might have executed the wrong person? That I don't get. Here's what's amazing here, Julian. I'm reading from the Texas Tribune right now. Go to my iPad, please. It said that, first of all, Ben Jett, who was the attorney for Rodney Reed with the Innocence Project. Ben Jett said a colleague was walking into the death row prison Friday afternoon to give Reed the news. He's already been moved into the death row prison. Abbott, this is what it says, Julian. Abbott has stopped one execution

since taking office in 2015. Also, at the unanimous urging of the Texas Board of Partners and Paroles. He agreed last year to change death row inmate Thomas Whitaker's death sentence to one of life in prison minutes before Whitaker was said to be injected with a lethal dose of pentobarbital in the state's death chamber. But that case was about mercy and granting the wishes of Whitaker's only surviving victim, his father. Reed's case instead questions the guilty verdict and landed him on death row, a verdict the Texas justice system has upheld by for decades. Before Whitaker, no Texas governor had stopped an execution for more than a decade.

Abbott has allowed 48 executions to proceed. I think it says a lot about the DA. When you don't want to look at the evidence, there's evidence that shows that this person is innocent, and we need to look at the system as a whole. This is just one case of someone who clearly is innocent. Just imagine how many more that are out there that didn't get this opportunity. Imagine how many more have been executed that really were innocent.

I look at it as, okay, we have evidence. The defense is saying, hey, we want to present this evidence. We want you to look at it. And if the DA doesn't look at it, that's just sending a red flag to somebody. I don't know if you can go above the DA's head and say, hey, why won't you look at this? Why haven't you looked at it? But something needs to be done about it to where the system can be fair and reasonable across the board for everybody. Reid was 28 years old when convicted. He's now 51. This took place in 1996. But here's what's interesting. I'm going to go back to the Texas Tribune article. Joseph, this is what they wrote. Both Reed and Fennell, Jimmy Fennell was the fiance of the woman who was killed. Both Reed and Fennell have been accused of multiple sexual assaults.

Reed was indicted but never convicted in several other rape cases. That has to tell you, like, what the hell is that about? Fennell spent 10 years in prison after he kidnapped and allegedly raped a woman while on duty as a police officer in 2007. Stites' body was found partially unclothed in Bastrop County hours after she didn't show up to her grocery store job, according to court records. Fennell's truck was found abandoned in a nearby school parking lot. Pieces of Stites' belt, which is believed to have been used to strangle her, were found at both locations. So the black guy is convicted and is on death row for murdering her, but pieces of her belt are found where her body was found and where the cop, the white cop, her fiance, truck was found. He was a cop. That's why they didn't look at that. You know, it's obvious. It's obvious. They

had a fall guy. The fall guy is black. You're in Texas. This kind of thing makes perfect sense to them. Don't want to look at him because the evidence might point a little too strongly and you might have to answer some uncomfortable questions about your own hiring practices and about who gets to wear a star and a badge. But you have this guy who can get probably a jury to convict him in 15 minutes because of what they just wrote about in the article and it's a no call. I mean, it's a no call for a DA who wants to get a conviction on a big case. Lauren Reed was convicted because sperm cells were found inside her body he says they had a relationship right what's amazing here is that again go back to the Texas

Tribune Reed had appeals pending at multiple levels from the trial court to the U.S. Supreme Court. In his appeals, he had repeatedly asked for and had been denied DNA testing on the belt thought to have been used to strangle Stites. You've got to ask the question, how in the hell you didn't test the DNA? Yeah. Okay. But hold up. He also argued for a closer look at his case based on forensic evidence that has been reexamined, with the medical examiner now saying Reed's sperm could have been in Stite's body from consensual sex. Duh.

Not murder, though. And new witnesses, including a man who claims Fennell confessed to Stite's murder to him while in prison. Right. Well, the Innocence Project exists for a reason. And really, when you think about the Innocence Project, it should not exist. But they do because they exonerate so many people each year. But obviously, in this case where you have evidence sitting out there that has not been checked,

that has not been referred to, that for some reason people are aggressively not trying to check, that's a sign that they know that there's probably something wrong with the case. Obviously, the amount of media attention that's on it now now I would think it's probably not going to happen. You know he probably is not going to be executed because there's just too much attention on this one case but it really does make you wonder how many more cases are out there like I was saying. Well what you have is first of all with 120 days stay and so now the question is now what happens in the next four months? Do they test the DNA?

Do they test the belt? Do they now factor in this confession? Reed says he had consensual sex with her. Some of her coworkers and her cousin said they were involved in a relationship. Other family members said, no, they were not. And the DA said, I'll believe the other family members. But he didn't disagree about consensual sex. No, no, no.

Reed says. Reed says. No, it's about the DA. So he agreed. No, no, no, no. No, he didn't agree. The DA agreed with the family members who claimed they had no relationship. So you had a cousin and coworkers of hers who said, yes, her and Reed,

the brother, had consensual casual sex. Other family members of hers said, oh, no, they didn't. DA believes them. But that does not mean rape or anything. Oh, no, no, I understand that. But the DA's argument is, I will believe the family members who said they had no relationship. So therefore, the only way his sperm cells found without in her body if I raised he had to rape her yeah it's like that's what the DA is saying you can't have no fine upstanding having casual sexual sex with a white woman and she is a face somebody's got a pay and it's gonna be the black says says you have 120 day extension can he be released?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. So now what happens is, first of all, it now goes back to the lower court. So now will the judge order the DNA testing? Because the bottom line is, if the belt was used to strangle her, the DNA is on the belt, unless somebody used gloves. So you test the belt. For some reason, the belt unless somebody used gloves So you test the belt for some reason the belt never been tested So what the DA did was they prosecuted him solely based on his sperm being found in the body

So that means you should have some pictures of the body with belt markings. You got that No, you test the damn belt true You test the belt and the guy who was in prison with Fennell, you got to bring him in to validate what he, because he says Fennell confessed to him, yeah, I killed her in prison, a lot of coarse language, because she was sleeping with a nigga. That's what this guy said about the former cop.

That's what this whole case is about. I mean, that's what this whole case is about. You know, and she ended up dead. That's what this whole case is about. I mean, that's what this whole case is about. And she ended up dead. Somebody's got to pay. This reminds me, folks, again, of a case called Clarence Brantley. This was out of Harris County.

And this was a case that got lots of attention in the 80s. And Clarence Brantley was steps from death on two or three occasions. He was wrongfully convicted. He died last year at the age of 66. And what happened there was, and the same thing happened, he was actually a janitor at a high school in Conroe, Texas. A white cheerleader was killed. They said Clarence Brantley was the one who did

it. It was prosecutorial misconduct. This thing, again, went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And he was saved on two or three different occasions. You see this story here in the Texas Monthly. He never got an apology. What happened to him? When I say he was close to death, I'm talking about he was minutes away from being executed. And then later, some other individuals were actually were found guilty of this crime as well. And same thing, black man in Texas. This case took place in 1990, and the murder was in 1980. A 16-year-old girl who was raped and strangled at the school doing a volleyball game. There was no physical evidence linking Brantley to the case. He was put on trial largely by the testimony of four white janitors who all, read this story, y y'all who all reconstructed a version

of events that positioned Brantley with the murdered girl at the time of her death while the other janitors gave alibis for each other Brantley did not have one convicted by an all white jury but they couldn't reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial tried again again in front of an all-white jury, this time convicted, came very close to death. The thing here is when Craig Watkins, he was a district attorney and former district attorney in Dallas, he created this special unit to test DNA evidence. A number of people have since been released from prison who were wrongfully convicted. We had the woman on from St. Louis do the exact same thing.

We've seen other DAs do this. And this is the fundamental problem with the death penalty. There are those like me who have been supported by the death penalty, but the issue here is, and why it really should be abolished, is that you just have too many damn people, too many damn people who have been released from prison in Texas, in Louisiana, in Illinois, in North Carolina,

I can go on and on and on, who were moments away from death, who were innocent. Also, it's racial, the racial disparity. It's shameful. It's shameful. Yeah. Also, you gotta look at the people that it happens to.

How are they financed? Do they have money for it? They are overwhelmingly- That plays a big role. They're overwhelmingly poor. They can't afford an attorney. They're disposable people in the larger sense in that if they died, nobody would raise a fuss as opposed to somebody who was middle class. They tend to get convicted on shoddy evidence. And we are at the precipice or we're at the

precipice of getting rid of the death penalty, not just because of these problems, but also because it is cruel and unusual and has been determined so by the Supreme Court. And there were very many times where people were trying to import drugs from overseas to create these cruel executions. So not only do you have people who are steps away from death, you have one case in Ohio where the guy was in the death chamber for 45 minutes while they're trying to find a vein, and he's screaming and moaning in pain. And they finally had to wheel him out and then try again a week later same result and our system loves loves loves prosecutors and because we love prosecutors and prosecutors love to brag

about how many people they've put in jail the system has this sort of you know embedded problem of wanting to put more people in jail and that shows that I'm doing something and so defense attorneys don't get the glory that they should get because in fact our system, particularly for poor people, it's crucial that defense attorneys are involved in this. But you know the thing is people love to run for office. Oh I was a prosecutor bragging about how many people they got in jail and that's that's a big that's a big factor in this. Let's say here's the other thing right. I covered courts in the Miami, Florida area,

Broward County. And one of my sources was a prosecutor who was in the homicide division, Chuck Murphy, his brother. And he had probably what I think is one of the most precise views on the death penalty. He was a prosecutor. He sees in horrific crimes. He was strongly in favor of the death penalty. But he said the problem was the application of it. A lot of times you get white people who killed black people who don't even come close to the death. Florida had never had that stat that nobody, nobody white had ever been never death. And to me, to me, it said something that you have a black law and order prosecutor who is saying right this is a problem this is a punishment that i think is fit and just in some cases but it is not applied

evenly and until we get to that day all those cases are are going to be very watched very carefully and then you had air myself ayala the first black states attorney in florida who said i am not going to prosecute death penalty cases and then Governor Scott took those cases away from her yes we are because he was like how dare you right how dare you and and that that alone was almost baldly racial you know yeah in that you have somebody and I guess the ultimate point I was trying to make is prosecution prosecutorial discretion plays an important role here and we don't have a lot of minorities in position to make those calls. Well, in a society that has a history of extrajudicial justice, trained specifically at black males, and then we look at the stats with regard to all other crimes, with regard to the disparate judgments

and the extensions of sentencing on black male individuals for the same crimes, I mean, of course that would extend to the death penalty. So it shouldn't surprise anybody that that's happening. All right, folks, I've got to go to a break right now. When we come back, one person who I am happy to see go to prison, Roger Stone, that lying son of a bitch, deserves to go to prison. And I will tell you what happened today when we come back. Roller Barton Unfiltered.

If you want to check out Roller Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. It's Roller Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roller Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to 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. All right, y'all. Hey, guys. As the marijuana momentum continues, friends at marijuanastock.org have already reached more than half of their funding goal

for 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 of marijuana, which 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 an incredible investment opportunity and that's where our friends at 420 Real Estate come in. Their business model is simple. They buy land that supports Hemp CBD Grow Operations

and lease it to licensed, high-paying tenants. They are Hemp CBD landlords, and you can get in on the action. Now, as Hemp continues to change the economic landscape, 420 Real Estate is allowing you to chase the American dream. And you can do it now by investing in their crowdfunding campaign for as little as $200. That's right, $200 up to $10,000. Now, do it now before the fund is closed.

To invest, go to MarijuanaStock.org. Get in the game and get in the game now. So, y'all, Roger Stone. This is the guy who has been a dirty trickster all his life. He learned it working for Richard Nixon. This is the guy who also in 2000 was involved in the campaigns in Florida and Bush v. Gore leading a lot of the vicious thugs to shut down voting areas there. Well, guess what, y'all?

Today, this lying son of a bitch was convicted for lying to Congress and tampering with a witness. About his efforts to learn about the anti-secrecy group, WikiLeaks released their hacked emails of the Democrats in 2016. The panel of nine women and three men deliberated for less than two days before finding Stone guilty on all seven counts, resulting from a September 2017 testimony to a House Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Kremlin's efforts to damage Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. Now, I know some of y'all might be saying, damn, Roland, you're using some harsh language for Roger Stone. And why are you doing so? Well, because that asshole had the audacity to personally slam me and Anna Navarro by calling us all sorts of nasty, vile, and despicable names.

And so then, of course, later the little punk tries to apologize for his comments and never apologized to either one of us personally for what he had to say. So once calling me a Negro, talked, said all kind of fat, nasty, talked about clothes, things like those. I'm going to find the tweets for you. I have had the same vile, nasty things to say about Ana Navarro. And that's what he is. Oh, yes. He both he said that both Ana and I were quota hires at CNN.

That's the kind of person Donald Trump hired. He said, Aaron Navarro, the dumbest person on TV since CNN, fired moron Roland Martin, both quota hires. He made those comments. He made other comments. And so, yeah, let's see here. He also made comments. He, you know, he made nasty stuff about Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and so many other people. And he gave an interview. I'm a find in a second with my man, Mark Thompson, where he said, I dare y'all to indict me. Lauren, that punk ass was convicted. Yeah, on seven counts.

I don't know why these guys think that, like, this is pretend. Like, they're in some sort of mafia movie. Michael Cohen did the same thing. You had Roger Stone bragging about, yeah, come get me, come indict me. Yeah, okay. I mean, like, why do you think that won't happen when you lie under oath? I mean, they love, that's like the most, that is the most favorite count that we see

in almost any procedure, the lying under oath. It's two, it's two. You know, and they witness that. No, it's three. Lie under oath, lie to the FBI, or tax evasion. Right, right. They gonna get. Right, yeah.

It's the two, it's the three things you don't do. Right. Rico, the Rico statue. They gonna get you on oath. If you lie, you can be found not guilty on everything else. But you can't lie. But they can get you on lying. And even more, I mean, really to me,

who he reminds me of before Cohen had the conversion, he reminds me of Cohen because remember, Cohen was the tough talker right along with Stone, you know, Michael Cohen. So anyway, so Stone just sort of running his mouth and daring the prosecutors to do. I mean, this is what they do all day. Like what made him think that they were just going to say, oh, OK, we're just not going to bother with that. They are going to bother with that because these are serious crimes. Question is, what is he going to get?

Is he going to get the wrist slap or is he not going to get the wrist slap? And will he get pardoned is the other question. Because you know how I actually think will end up happening is that the president will pardon him but but this idea that you could play this game and not lose its silliness and so here we are in order to do that you gotta you gotta make I forgot. No, I can't defend it. I mean, I'm not going to defend it. You go to court, evidence has been brought against you. Right. And now you tell people, I'm innocent. I don't give a damn what you say, what you do.

Take me to court. You know, it's okay to say that and do that. Everybody has said that. I mean, you look at John Gotti. He said it. He was called a Teflon Don. At some point, you look at John Gotti. He said it. He was called a Teflon Dunn. At some point, you end up making mistakes. Until he was caught on tape trashing Sammy the Bull Gravano.

Right. And then Sammy heard it and was like. There's no more loyalty. There's no more loyalty. I don't need to be loyal to you. I got some for your ass. Y'all, so Rodney Stone went on Mark Thompson's former show on SiriusXM, Make It Plain. And this was from, let me get the date here.

This was from 2017. This was actually, yes, 2017. So here's Roger Stone sitting there saying, I'm the man, y'all can't touch me. Press play. My friend, put up or shut up. Where is the proof? We have the mail. Well, honestly, I don't have it but it's it's out there roger i'm

just trying to give you every opportunity if you want if you want to if you want to acquit yourself fine but i'm a little you know i'm a little concerned you're saying this and then next week we're going we might hear some doggone phone calls of you man i'm just like you know i'm not going to you telling me i'm not going to hear that. There's nothing there's nothing that's going to come back. Nothing whatsoever. You know what? If they have any proof whatsoever, indict me. But if you don't have the proof, issue an apology because this is getting tedious. Let me be very clear. I had no contacts with the Russians. There is no proof to the contrary because it's simply not true. So let's let's let's let them let's let the process take

its place. Let's have a full federal investigation. Right. And let's see the proof in a court of law. That's how the United States works. Well, Joseph, well, Joseph, but in order for that to happen, you got to make sure there is no evidence. He thought there was no evidence. No. Bring it. He was so arrogant. Right. But see, and I think that's the coin of the realm here, right? Every one of these dudes has been arrogant until they've gotten caught. Paul Manafort.

Right. Sitting his ass in jail. Right. Trump campaign manager. Right. His associate. Right. Guilty.

Michael Flynn, National Security Advisor. Yep. Going to prison. Right. Guilty. Michael Flynn, national security advisor. Going to prison. Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney. Going to prison. Now you got Trump lying about everything. This guy likes lying, thieving, foul, despicable individuals around him. Why? Because he's foul, evil, lying, and despicable. Game recognizes game, right? I mean, but it's also a matter of the arrogance inherent in the system

where you have people who believe that they are bulletproof because they run stuff. I mean, and that to me is kind of a bit of a frustration here in that the quiet parts are now being said out loud. You know, we're hearing a lot of stuff that the quiet parts are now being said out loud. You know, we're hearing a lot of stuff that used to be in the back room. And I don't know if that's positive or negative or if it's advancement or not. But certainly when this stuff goes out there and there are people who feel like and assume that they won't get punished. I don't know what that is, though. What is that? What makes them think that they can just sort of break the law in front of everybody's face? Oh, well, because Thug in chief.

But see, it's coming. Has done all these different things. But you can't tie the president to that. No, but you can't. No, no, no. Well, Roger Stone did. That's on him. No, it's not.

That's so he made that choice. No, no, no, no, no, no. Here's what you're wrong. He made that choice. Here's what you're wrong. How am I wrong gates testified gates testified? Steve Bannon testified that Roger Stone was their conduit between the campaign in WikiLeaks Okay, during during the trial they testified so we try to say it was Something to do with this election during the the trial, they testified that Stone,

they had informed Trump of the advance notice of what was being dropped. He's in it. That's what happened. See, you can't act like, see, here's the deal. I can't have five boys of mine rolling with me at all times. And then all of a sudden, when the shit go down, I'm clean.

See, I can't have Manafort, Flynn, Giuliani, Stone, Cohen. Who am I leaving out? Gates. I can't have all of them around me that I go, wasn't me. Well, especially when what they're doing is to help you.

Right. What they're doing is to help you get elected. You can't have your campaign chairman, his business partner. This is the same man who said, Cohen never told me about no payoffs. He didn't tell me. And then we get documents showing, yo ass new.

See, Trump don't get the benefit of the doubt. When you have lied, lied, and lied about the lies, you know what? Let me go ahead and go to the next story. Please. Let's go.

Come on. Let's go. No, no, no, because it ain't going to help you out in your party. Okay. Because here's what happened. So today, Trump White House decide, yo, we smarter than y'all. So what they do is they release a new letter, y'all. So what they do is they release a new letter, y'all. They release a new letter

of the transcript of this phone call. Okay. Let me help y'all out. So Julian, you might want to take a drink of water on this one. Okay. You're going to drink a water. Okay. They told us. Okay. They told us earlier

that on the call, Trump kept emphasizing corruption in Ukraine. The transcript they released today, it's not in there, Julian. He never brought it up. So they literally released a transcript that countered the lie they told

a few months ago. I'm not going to argue with you. Hell, you can't argue with me! I can't argue with what? You can't! The Democrats is throwing this damn Hail Mary. Hold on, we got this impeachment here. It's going to play out like it is. Julian, okay just okay let me try to make it was

related you married yes got it happily so Julian tells his wife baby look I was with my friend you know frat yes well the organization you in the best organization there is the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated. Okay, all right. Whatever. I'm sorry. We all make mistakes, but carry on. Carry on.

Y'all got more prison chapters than anybody else. Really? But anyway, so you say, baby, I was with my fraternity brothers until 3 o'clock in the morning. We went out bowling, then went out for some drinks. We were all hanging out. Then all of a sudden you got text messages with an exchange between you and your frat brother saying we were at the strip club. Then you tell your wife, see, baby, we were all together.

And she like, yeah, but you told me y'all went bowling, then y'all went drinking. But the text messages say you were at the strip club. Which version am I supposed to believe? The one you told me, or what the text messages say? My wife gonna believe the one I told her. You out your damn mind. And that's why, and Trump

think, Joseph, we gonna believe what he said when his own damn. How dumb can you be? That's just like the transcript that counters the lie you told. The first thing you do is say, damn, I didn't bring up corruption. Say, don't put that out. Don't. They're so dumb.

They put out a document that contradicted what they say, Johnson. That's what happens when you're lying. It never snaps together right. Well, yeah. You ain't going to believe me or your lying eyes. I mean, you know. The hearing is going to play out like it's going to play out. It's going to play out.

Just like today, they said it was witness intimidation. I saw what the president tweeted. It was blunt, but it was no intimidation. Are you serious? That serious? No. No. No. There was no witness intimidation We gonna lead a friend out of

Trump is acting like an Omega. Really? Okay. I mean, first of all, how you say it's not witness intimidation? That's not. What he said in that tweet is not witness intimidation. While she is testifying, he's tweeting that she messed up in Somalia. That's not intimidation. That is him giving his opinion.

Okay, so you're saying he's not supposed to tweet while she's testifying. He's not supposed to. I'm sorry. Hold on. Stop. I'm sorry. He told us he was not watching. Right.

That's another lie. But he's watching. Yeah. And number two. Is that another lie? Joseph, go ahead. Go ahead. What lawyer in the world would allow a client to do that?

Nobody. Right. Zip it. If it's going to do that. Nobody. Right. Zip it. If it's going to play out. What lawyer would say, yeah, in the middle of an impeachment hearing, go ahead and do

something so they can add another impeachment. So they can stop the hearing and announce that you're live tweeting while she is testifying. I mean, here's the thing. If they're so innocent and everything's so cool, why is Trump stopping all his people from testifying? Mulvaney.

Matter of fact, y'all go ahead and roll the video of Chairman Adam Schiff talking about the witness intimidation in real time. Oh, my goodness. You've shown the courage to come forward today and testify. Notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the White House or State Department not to. Notwithstanding the fact that, as you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that call record. And now the president in-time is attacking you what effect do you think that has on other witnesses

willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing well it's very intimidating it's a dime designed to intimidate, is it not? I mean, I can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating. Well, I want to let you know, Ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously. So can you explain that, Julia? It's not witness intimidation.

Why? Because you say it's not witness intimidation? No, I mean, I'm saying it based on, yes. Have you read the definition of what witness intimidation is? What is witness intimidation? No, you tell me. You say it's not. What is it?

To me, that's not, what he tweeted is not witness intimidation. What you would constitute witness intimidation? So what is it? What would be witness intimidation? What is it? Threat's not what he tweeted is not witness intimidation what you would constitute with witnessing it so what is what what would be witness intimidation what is it threatening threatening a witness to go testify that would be that would be witness intimidation by saying hey if you go testify this will happen to you this will happen to your family stating stating what a person done when they was in when they were what the ambassador of ukraine at the time that's not that's not intimidation coming from the president of the united states so since the president said it's intimidation yeah he's got well first of all okay okay if the president has jurisdiction over the person and she is literally

testifying before congress and as she is testifying live, this fool says, everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off with Somalia. How did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her and my second phone call with him. It is the U.S. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. They call it serving at the pleasure of the president. The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than preceding administrations.

Proceeding should be preceding. He can't spell. It is called, quite simply, America first. With all of that, however, I have done far more for Ukraine than old. Speaking of Obama, he's whining the complex. Dog, she's testifying. He's saying she was trapped. She's dragging her.

Every place that she went, she was trapped he's dragging every place that she went she destroyed that's not witness intimidation that is just somebody stating their opinion no it's not it's not what he's not just somebody he's not just a not just somebody B this is not just stating an opinion out of thin air he's basically the defendant in a case C and she's a witness in that case he had the power to remove her from her post, which he did. Which he did. And he is now trashing her reputation in live time as she testified about what she understood him to do during her post. And what he did with the defamatory.

I mean, she's probably not considered a public figure under the law. No. She might be a limited public figure, but it's intimidation. It is. I mean, it's hard to justify it. I mean, you disagree, but it's hard to justify. I disagree. Well, let's do this. Do innocent people intimidate? Would an

innocent person write what he wrote? It depends. What's he worried about? If he's innocent, why is he tweeting? Like, if he's innocent and everything's good. First of all, that depends. Ain't an answer. I mean, it's really yes or no. I mean, either you innocent. Or you're not.

Or you're not. And if you're not worried, why are you tweeting during her testimony? I mean, come on, man. You're already tired. I don't think the president. You got other stuff to do. You're the president. I mean, you got other things to do.

I mean. Him being the president means that he can do whatever he wants. As far as. Including waste his time watching. Speaking of. If he wants to do that, he can do that. Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman pointed out how Trump

tried to intimidate the ambassador. Now, you testified in your opening statement that you had left Ukraine by the time of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

When was the first time that you saw the call record for this phone call? When it was released publicly at the end of September, I believe. And prior to reading that call record, were you aware that President Trump had specifically made reference to you in that call? No. What was your reaction to learning that? I was shocked. Absolutely shocked and devastated, frankly. What do you mean by devastated? I was shocked and devastated that I would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner where President Trump said that I was bad news to another world leader and that I would be going through some things. So I was, it was a terrible moment.

A person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction. I think, you know, even now words kind of fail me. Well, without upsetting you too much, I'd like to show you the excerpts from the call. And the first one, where President Trump says, the former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news. And the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news. So I just want to let you know. What was your reaction when you heard the president of the United States refer to you as bad news? I couldn't believe it. I mean, again, shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador

like that to a foreign head of state. And it was me. I mean, I couldn't believe it. The next excerpt, when the president references you, is a short one. But he said, well, she's going to go through some things. What did you think when President Trump told President Zelensky and you read that you were going to go through some things? I didn't know what to think, but I was very concerned.

What were you concerned about? She's going to go through some things. It didn't sound good. It sounded like a threat. Did you feel threatened? I did. How so? I didn't know exactly.

It's not, you know, a very precise phrase, but I think it didn't feel like I was... I really don't know how to answer the question any further except to say that it kind of felt like a vague threat. And so I wondered what that meant. Concerned me. And Congresswoman Terry Sewell pointed out how this whole thing impacted the ambassador's reputation. But I really want to know how it felt to have your reputation sullied, lead, not for state and nation, but for personal gain. You spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service, it affects your family. And today we've seen you as this former ambassador, this 33-year veteran of the Foreign Service,

but I want to know about you personally and how this has affected you personally and your family. Yeah, it's been a difficult time. I mean, I am a private person. I don't want to put all that out there. But it's been a very, very difficult time because the president does have the right to have his own or her own ambassador in every country in the world. But does the president have the right to actually malign people's character? I mean, I may not be against any law, but I would think that it would be against decorum and decency. I mean, there's a question as to why the kind of campaign to get me out of Ukraine happened, because all the president has to do

is say he wants a different ambassador. And in my line of work, perhaps in your line of work as well, all we have is our reputation. And so this has been a very painful period. How has it affected your family? I really don't want to get into that but thank you for asking. Because I do care. I also want to know how you think it affected your fellow colleagues in the Foreign Service. My Republican colleagues have said that since you received such adulation from and embracing from your own fellow colleagues that what occurred, the incident that occurred with the president and his cronies maligning your reputation,

has that had a chilling effect on the ability and the morale within the Foreign Service? Can you speak to that? Yeah. I think that it has had exactly that, a chilling effect, not only in Embassy Kyiv, but throughout the State Department. Because people don't know whether their efforts to pursue our stated policy are going to be supported. And that is a dangerous place to be. Y'all, bottom line is, the man is a thug. He's thug in chief.

And all of his secrets are being exposed. And guess what? Next week, that army officer will be testifying. Hmm. Interesting. Hmm. Hmm. Let's see how that goes. Got to go to break. We come back.

We're going to talk about Myles Garrett and the NFL. Man, my fellow Aggies suspended indefinitely for swinging on a Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback who actually started the whole thing. You're watching Roland Martin Unfiltered. You want to check out Roland Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our

YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. It's Roland Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roland Martin Unfiltered.

Like, share, subscribe to 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. In July, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg released his campaign's chief piece of policy

outreach to black voters. It's called the Douglas Plan, a comprehensive investment in the empowerment of black Americaica the plan covers everything from criminal justice reform to public health care education and beyond it proposes using federal contracting rules to increase the amount of contracts going to minority and women-owned firms at 25 percent and offers student loan deferment and forgiveness to pale grant recipients who go on to start businesses and employ at least three people. He said a number of people supporting the plan, but as it turns out,

that's not exactly true. There's an official in South Carolina who says, uh, I didn't put my name on this. Joseph, what do you make of this? Oh, I think it's a very ambitious proposal, but it's also kind of a rookie politician mistake to assume that people back something just because they decided not to opt out and that if you put that out, there won't be blowback when they find out that you say endorse something that they didn't really endorse. I mean, and I also think it's it's it kind of smacks of of of Buttigieg's blind spot, especially when it comes to race. I mean, he definitely has one he's working. He says he's working on reversing it. but this kind of thing is not going to go very well.

It doesn't cater to the black community. You know, when you talk about how, you know, you're going to increase women and minority-owned businesses to 25 percent, this can be applied. LGBT can apply for this. White women can apply for this. First of all, it doesn't target that. How can LGBT apply? They can say they're a minority. A Caucasian woman can say, hey, I'm a minority.

First of all, if you go to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, women were actually included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When Nixon put in place the affirmative action program put forth by Arthur Fletcher, it was MWBE. The W is actually women, white women. That's actually been the case from the beginning. So MWBE does not mean LGBTQ. MWBE means established minority groups and women.

So that's not true. But it doesn't, the plan itself does not specifically tailor towards the black community. Okay, that's where the MWBE part comes in. Black is in the M part. Go ahead. I'm not a big fan of the MWB part comes in. Black is in the M part. Go ahead. I'm not a big fan of the MWB. I mean, I do think that it should specifically,

I know in the law you cannot specifically state a minority group, but when I hear the word minority, quite frankly, without a specificity to African Americans, I'm out. Okay, and I'm out because the game that gets played is we do the dying, we do the fighting, we bust our ass to get these things, you know, John Lewis gets hit in the head and all these other groups benefit from our work. And I get that we're on the law, but I'm not. But wait a minute, though. But wait a minute, though. But here's the reality. It is simply the

reality. 64 Civil Rights Act, 65 Voting Rights Act, 68 Fair Housing Act, those were not race specific laws. I get it. I heard exactly what you said. And so the Voting Rights Act in particular has covered, has gone beyond African-American. You've had ballots that have been in native language of different people as well. Absolutely. But again, but to say that blacks are not included in this, that's simply not true. They're included. No, he said they're not. I'm saying that's simply not true.

They are. Well, I think, though, you can speak for yourself, but I think what you're saying is we don't specify. It's not specified specifically for us and us only. And you're right, Ron. You read the law, and I'm totally, I get, but what I think we should be fighting for is what other groups fight for, and there's nothing wrong with this. We do have a specific set of problems,

most of which are based in 300 years, what we had to put up with, which we're all aware of, and we need to get real about the fact that if we don't get specific about what we want we end up getting we end up getting ignored when you say specific the reality is the supreme court rulings on that okay you can say that but the supreme court rulings are there the crowson ruling the rulings that are specifically applied to affirmative action they're there so how do you

get around that well i think I think certainly, obviously, if you're a civil rights group that concentrates on the things that African-Americans care about, right, you fight for the very specific things that we, that impact us. No, no, I'm going to ask again. So you're talking about only being focused on what the law says.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. When we have individual fights for Supreme Court justices and Barack Obama wants to punk out and put Merrick Garland on the stage, that's the part where we start fighting. No, that's not what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is because of the Croson ruling, because of the Supreme Court ruling,

you cannot have a black specific... Right, I understand that. You can't have that. But when we have real life political fights like Supreme Court justice, like Merrick Garland, you're telling me that we could not have come out. Our our groups could not have come out. NAACP, et cetera, and so on. Couldn't have said we want a black female to be. Lauren, you're telling. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're not referring. I understand that. Right. I was the one who was yelling, saying

exactly black woman. Exactly. But what I'm talking about is saying about law. We're not referring to those. I understand that because I was the one who was yelling and saying, you want a black woman. Exactly. So nobody's saying about the law, we're talking about specific fights and specific moments. No, we are. That's what it comes down to. That is different than when you talk about a specific law or policy that's targeted to a very specific group. The problem is the law doesn't allow you to do that.

I know that. But when we get into specific political fights. No, he's talking about decisions that get made. No, what he was talking about was the Douglas plan, the saying it wasn't specific to blacks. And what I'm saying is the reality. There are other groups that have been excluded in the law for years. OK, LGBT gay people have been excluded in the law for years. OK.

All right. And they still went for this. No, no, no, no, no, no. And they got it out of their stuff. It was not that gay people were excluded from the laws. Well. No, no. The law was specific in terms of anti-discriminatory laws.

So, for instance, when you look at the Married with Disabilities Act, okay, the civil rights law of 64 did not say if you're disabled. What happened was that law was passed and they looked at the law and applied it to those who were disabled. No persecuted group waiting for the law to change to try to fight for what they want. But the Civil Rights Act wasn't changed. The persecuted group doesn't say, well, wait a minute, let's wait for the Supreme Court to be with us until we do something. No, you have to fight for them. No, the Supreme Court is the one who rules.

But you're saying that policy has to get ahead of the law. Pretty much. To make it fair and reasonable, policy has to get ahead of the law. No, no, what I'm saying is policy got ahead of the law, and then we went through in the 70s 80s and 90s when you had the lawsuits against those very policies that's right and when those policies went all the way up to the supreme court the laws were invalidated because they were race specific right and so if you're in texas where i'm born and raised they went to the top 10 percent rule when it came to college admissions because the hotwood

decision was invalidated by the supreme court and so you pass a law like that they're going to strike it down and it's going to get invalidated the university of michigan yeah affirmative action program okay that was a limited ruling because it all went back to the crowson ruling right and so the civil rights groups understand that. And so what happens is you have politicians who are sitting there saying, okay, I need to figure out how can I create a remedy that's

not a race-specific remedy but that impacts a particular group. And so you got to figure that out. That will pass. That will not be declared un will pass. But LGBT is clear because that will pass muster and will not be declared unconstitutional. But LGBT campaigned

for certain issues and they got their issues passed. Gay marriage. Gay marriage. And what was that based on? Right. When you think of

affirmative action, what was it? That was based on political pressure. No, no, no. What law was it based on? It was based on non-discriminatory.

It was based upon the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. My point is, they did not wait for some perfect legal universe. First of all, Laura, black folks didn't wait. What I'm trying to explain to you is, black folks did all the fighting, but the laws were invalidated when they were race-specific. So it's not like black folks did not fight for it. I said that 15 minutes ago. Black folks fought for them, but laws invalidspecific. So it's not like black folks did not fight for it. I said that 15 minutes ago. Black folks fought for them, but laws invalidated it.

So now what? So, okay, so the Supreme Court has ruled. Uh-huh. What can black folks do to have a race-specific policy? Well, again, in real life, not legal, what up? In real life, we have political battles that happen, right? Real life is the law! I just told you 15 minutes ago Merrick Garland was a perfect example of it.

No! Merrick Garland wasn't a policy! Merrick Garland was not a policy! We're having a political fight and we don't decide to go for our own. I'm fully aware of Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland wasn't a policy. Merrick Garland was an appointment. Basically, what Rollins is arguing is that why do the fighting only to have it go all the way up to the Supreme Court and get invalidated, which will happen?

Why would it get invalid? First of all, it can't even go all the way to the Supreme Court. No, it can't even go all the way up to the Supreme Court because the moment you try to have a race specific policy. Nobody's trying. They're not even going to get it passed because the lawyers on the city, county, state, and federal level will say the law in this proposal is invalidated by existing law. It's a difference to say, first of all, black folks fight every single day for a black superintendent or a black police chief or a black fire chief or all those different things.

That is different than saying how do you create a race-specific policy. That's different. It's two separate things. And the problem we have is the law says it can't be race-specific. So now it's how creative can one get. But the law is being used against us, though. How? With the current Byron allen situation what was it was it 1866 section 1981 where it states that blacks should get fair and reasonable when it comes to contracts that law is being used against us right now to say hey i don't have to give you a contract hold up how is

the law being used against us? Because Byron is advocating that we're not getting our fair share in the media. No. No, yes, he is. He's saying that blacks are not getting their fair share of the business in the media. No, that's not what he's advocating. He stated Comcast means $11 billion. No, no, no, follow me.

$11 billion, right? I'm fully aware of that. What Byron is advocating, first of all, there's a difference between making your broad statement and what your lawsuit says. The lawsuit says is that he was denied an opportunity to be able to have his networks carried on Comcast. He was alleging discriminatory pattern

based upon how he was treated he filed the lawsuit using that 1866 civil rights act and that go inside what you're saying but again that but that is specific to that that is an individual who is suing a company okay byron allen lawsuit is not Byron Allen representing black America. Exactly. No, the lawsuit. And so the lawsuit is Byron Allen's lawsuit against Comcast. It's not a class action lawsuit. No, it's not representing five or 10,000 black businesses representing his business, but he's using the basis of his legal argument is that particular statute that now gone before the Supreme Court. It brings awareness to all other minority businesses that have gone through this issue. If he never if he never if he never pursued the lawsuit.

Think of how many minority businesses that's trying to get in the media. What wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't have gotten this exposure. That's think about it. That's not true. So you're saying that Byron Allen is representing his company because he feels that he was being mistreated. Do you know how many African-Americans who have been launching cable networks or have been launching digital offerings and who have been doing this? Do you know how many more it could be if we had our fair share in it? Okay, but you keep saying our fair share, but again, there's no set-aside.

Because you can't do a set-aside. Because the Supreme Court is invalidated. You can do a set-aside for federal contracts. You can't do a set-aside for federal contracts. Yes, you can. You have it all the time. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Minority set-aside. My veteran-owned contracts

are set aside because you have to have a certain percentage allocated to those entities, those individuals. Whether it's minority-owned, Alaskan-owned, veteran-owned, veteran-disabled-owned, you have to have set-aside contracts for those individuals

and it's designed to keep it fair and reasonable across the board when you have the big boys like Bowen, SAIC, Lockheed Martin. When you have those big boys that's going after these contracts and you have the small mom and pops, they have no chance to fight with those companies. So this is the reason why you have the set-asides. I know exactly what I'm talking about. So you do have set-asides when it comes to the federal level as well as the state? No, no. Yes, you do.

Not with the state. So you're telling me as a minority I can put in a bid for a state contract? No, as a minority, you can put in a bid for a contract, but it's based upon that particular state and what type of MWPB program they have, the Supreme Court has created extreme limits in terms of what that is. That's what the Croson decision was. It's clear. Would you like me to look it up?

I mean, would you like me to look up the Croson decision? Go ahead. You can look up everything else. Let's go. I mean, this alpha can educate an omega real fast. I can humble myself when somebody's trying to educate me. Hey, that don't mean you're right, but hey, I'll listen to you. Well, first of all, it is whether you want to own it or write.

I mean, that's what it boils down to. You have what the Supreme Court has dealt with affirmative action cases. Okay? It's there. So the problem that we have been dealing with, you saw advancement in the 1970s when you had much stronger MWB programs. You actually had strong quota programs. If you look at the advancement of African-Americans in the 1970s with Maynard Jackson in Atlanta, with Mayer and Berry in D.C., Coleman Young in Detroit, with Richard Hatcher in Gary, Indiana, with Stokes in Cleveland,

and you had the other black mayors, you had significant amounts of contracts that were being awarded to African-Americans and others as a result of set-aside programs, quota programs. They were there. Reagan gets elected in 1980, sworn in 1981. Those programs begin to get challenged, and then all of a sudden, you begin to have a Supreme Court ruling on those set-aside and quota cases. That was dealing with business. Then education came in with Ward Connolly in California and the ballot initiative when it came to higher education. This November, okay, we just saw it two weeks ago. Washington State had an affirmative action program. The voters there voted it out of existence.

The state legislature in Washington actually put it back together, passed it. Then you had these Chinese businessmen, okay, who then opposed it, raised the money. Last I checked, the folks who wanted to keep the law in place were losing by 0.7%. They're still counting ballots in D.C., excuse me, in the state of Washington. So that's what you have had. You have had a significant number of attacks on set aside and quota and affirmative action programs. So what it has led to, it has led to politicians trying to figure out race neutral language that could benefit various groups. And that's where the grappling has been.

So the problem comes in is when you begin to designate minorities. When you mention women, absolutely right. When you say when you say MWBE, it should be MWWBE for white women, because if you're a black woman, you're under the black category. If you're a Hispanic woman, you're under the Hispanic category. And so the white women are included in MWBE because you had that racist judge, they call him Judge Smith out of Virginia, who put women into the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they were not included in the 64 Civil Rights Act because he thought that was actually going to kill the bill.

It did the opposite. It actually increased the passage of the bill. The reason you have the 1972 Title IX, okay, Title IX was not about sports and women being able to play softball. Title IX is a point from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That law in 72 is what opened the open the doors of professional schools to women. And so women became engineers and doctors and dentists and lawyers as a result of Title IX. And none of it. But that was 72. Well, but the point is, it was 72 because coming out of the civil rights movement,

the feminist movement also began to rise up and to begin to see those laws change. So now where do we stand? We're in a position now where we have to figure out how can you craft specific policies and programs that can benefit groups that are most impacted, but you have to do it in a race neutral way because of the Supreme Court decisions. Like 10, 20, 30 and anything that anytime you get into economics, you could do it fairly easily. I mean, we know what the economics are with regard to the black community. So 10-20-30 was actually, Clyburn's idea is actually, I think, an attempt to do that. Well, but here's the problem with 10-20-30. Okay, and I sat with Clyburn on that.

His 10-20-30 program was that 10% of all federal funds go into congressional districts, actually go into counties, where 20% or more people live below the poverty line for at least 30 years. Here's the problem with that. Two-thirds of those counties that qualified, more than 430, were in Republican districts. They were actually white. So, again, because the reality is when you talk about poverty in America, we automatically assume that, well, look, it's black folks because we have concentrated poverty, but in pure numbers, it's a whole bunch of different white folks. And so people want to sit here like people are critical of Kamala Harris's housing plan, okay, and say, well, that's going to benefit white folks who are moving into gentrified areas.

But the problem you still have is to the people out there who for some reason can't get this through their heads is that is that the struggle that has existed with black politicians is how can I create a program that somehow impacts? He's a targeted group, but I can't use race. Yeah. But I can't use race. And that has been the policy struggle that they have been grappling with since the Croson decision by the Supreme Court that then followed by the University of Michigan decision. Because even though the Michigan decision dealt with college admissions, that still was applied to other areas of affirmative action. And that's where the struggle we in. Class is dismissed. We've got to go to a break. I'm gonna do my final story when we come back.

Roll it out, unfiltered. I'm from three generations of Alonzo Thorntons who joined the army. My grandfather was in World War II. I joined the army in 1984 as a combat medic. And in the military, we had people who watched our back. It was a system where I would watch your back, you would watch mine.

My union grants that security because I know my medical benefit is taken care of, my pension is taken care of. I can concentrate on caring for people. And public service especially, I love it because a lot of times many individuals don't have anywhere else to go. You know, public hospitals may not take them, but public service, we take them and we care for them

and we give them the best lives possible. I love it. I don't see myself going into anything else. Every time I see someone prosper because of something that I did or I've done, or I see another person get into healthcare because of my encouragement, it just makes me know that this was worthwhile and any trials that I'm going through, it's worth it.

Alonzo Thornton knows how important it is that we have each other's backs. That's what he's always done in the Army, as a public service worker, and as a member of AFSCME. Alonzo is the embodiment of duty, honor, and integrity. The people of Nevada are lucky to have him looking out for the state's most vulnerable residents. If you know someone like Alonzo who sees their job not just as a career but a calling, go to this website and nominate him or her for a never quit award. Create another. All right folks in the final seconds of last night's game between the Pittsburgh

Steelers and Cleveland Browns. Ooh, stuff got real funky when defensive end Myles Garrett ripped the helmet off of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph and clubbed him in the head with it. Now, here is the video there. As a result, Garrett has been suspended and definitely also suspended as Browns defensive tackle Larry Ogunjobi for one game in Pittsburgh center Marquise Pouncey for three games. Folks, Miles Garrett, let me say this right now. A lot of folks have been obviously blasting Miles Garrett for this. Miles Garrett has apologized.

I know that young man. He plays an All-American at Texas A&M. He's a five-star coming out of high school. One of the most soft-spoken, smartest brothers out there in terms of the black history, in terms of the poetry, in terms of the things that... I mean, he's an extremely smart brother. But he admitted, I lost my cool, and I absolutely lost it.

And so for the folks out there who want to try to call him a thug, no, no, no. You don't know a damn thing about Miles Garrett. I'm talking about that's one of the most well read brothers all get out. But that was one of those things where guys go at it. Mason Rudolph

tried to rip after him. Garrett got pissed off. If you play the video back, you'll see where Rudolph went after him. Then he went after Rudolph. And then, of course, I think he just simply escalated. And that's what happened there. But he's going to have to apply for reinstatement. It's an indefinite suspension.

It's not four games or six games. It's indefinite. It could be all of next year. Fair or not? That happened because there's a quarterback involved. And right now in modern football, you know, you touch a quarterback, and oh my God,

you know, you got to gently put him on the ground when you sack him and all this. And that's why, because if that was two defensive backs doing that, he would have gotten suspended maybe for the rest of the season or big fat fine, but not indefinite. But ooh, it's a quarterback, so we can't

tackle you know saturday night live had that really funny skit on quarter on on football and how modern football now you can't even touch anybody without getting a penalty but specifically with the quarterbacks these penalties that we see and i'm not saying he should have been penalized for that of course he should have been penalized for that but we have seen some penalties where somebody incidentally it's a quarterback and oh my god there's a 15 you know yarder for that so it's it's that's because a quarterback was involved it shouldn't and it's the Steelers everybody shouldn't get to that level to where you just go to an indefinite suspension I think if you're gonna you know me playing football in college if you're going to suspend

one person you're gonna have to suspend other people as well because it's not just one person swinging you have more than one person swinging at each other. So I look at it as, okay, it's a defensive lineman fighting a quarterback. Then all of a sudden you got, now it's three on one. You got 66, 71 and a quarterback. So he has to defend himself. Now, was he wrong for swinging a helmet? Yes, he was wrong, but it doesn't warrant someone being suspended indefinitely for the whole season. And, you know, you look at this person has to fight for reinstatement next year, and you don't know if, you know, if Roger Goodell is going to let him come back or make an example out of him and say, hey, we're going to suspend you indefinitely for the next upcoming season. He was wrong for swinging the helmet, but it's interesting to look at the video

and see the quarterback running after him right at the end before he swings the helmet. I mean, clearly he should be penalized.'s not like a discussion but the quarterback does kind of come after him and rush him right and the thing here joseph she's right the reality is in the nfl um their deal is the marquee position is the quarterback uh they might as well put a red jersey and say don't touch him don don't hit him. I know. They have changed the rules to the point, like, for instance, the rule this year is now if you're a defensive player, if you tackle the quarterback, you can't land on them.

You've got to roll over. Now it's putting your full weight. Right. Now you've got to land on the side. Now you've got – I mean, and then they changed the rules after Tom Brady got injured where you can't tackle a quarterback below his knee. Right, like the quarterback is not in the game. Right, and also if you're accidentally, you know,

brushed up against the quarterback's face mask, you either hit him in the head and send him to concussion protocol. That's what this is. I don't think for a second if that was right. Two defensive players or linemen or wide receiving the DB happened and all of a sudden they said was right. Two defensive players, a lineman, a wide receiver, the DB happened, and all of a sudden they said, oh, no, no, no. No, it's because it's the quarterback. Well, yeah.

Excuse me. Yeah. And, you know, everything that you guys say I agree with. And the thing is that football is a brutal – you're trying to hurt people. Who was the wide receiver that got to fighting? He used to play with the Giants. Now he's with the Browns. What did they do?

Beckham. Yeah. Beckham got to fighting? He used to play with the Giants. Now he's with the Browns. With LSU. Yeah. Beckham got to fighting with the DB. Yeah. Those two never – they didn't get suspended for the whole season. Norman, who's now with the Redskins. They didn't get suspended for the whole season, and they went full – Josh Stormy, right.

They went full-blown, fist-to-fist. That's right. Same – Well, the similarities are fine, but the difference is helmet. Using it as a – can't do that. Not saying that it is not punishable, but also acknowledging Roland's point that this young man is upstanding. Football gets you that way. I mean, when you play football, it's a brutal game to try to hurt somebody.

He got punished. He should be punished. That's not the question. But it's like, it's not the heart. Here's where I want to at least give a bit of a bigger picture, right, is that you can tie this back to Kaepernick in a way, right, that that's one of the reasons why he's still on the outs with the league is because he plays a premier position where a lot of white quarterbacks play.

And to sully that position by doing something or by speaking out, that's going to get you problems because you're a quarterback. Oh, no. There he is. You're a quarterback. Oh, no. There he is. You're absolutely right. There's no doubt in my mind. So, for instance, Eric Reid is back playing with the Panthers.

He's still protesting. You have Kenny Stills, who was with the Miami Dolphins, who's down with the Houston Texans. He continues to take a knee. But Reid is a DB. Granted, Reid also was a part of the lawsuit, and they did collude against him, but he eventually got signed. But that is the difference. The difference is that the quarterback position in the NFL is the closest to ownership than anything else. The deal is the quarterback is so special that the hierarchy on a team is owner, quarterback, coach, QB.

Right. And their deal is, oh, hell no. QB is above the coach. You are not going. QB is above the coach. You are not going to play a marquee position. QB is above the coach. And protest.

And that's exactly right. It's not only that, but also you look at how Cam Newton got the mess beat out of him as a quarterback. Now, granted, he's a big dude, but he really took a lot of hits, a lot of hard hits, some of which were borderline illegal. And he did not get that kind of a benefit of the doubt. Let me ask you all this here. So I said this during the break. So on the Dan Patrick show, they said that this so-called workout tomorrow, which is absolutely strange. Yeah, it is.

Okay. So all of a sudden, all of a sudden, Colin Kaepernick celebrated his birthday last week. All of a sudden, his team gets an email, Charity, be in Atlanta. You're having a workout. All NFL teams are going to be there. Clothes, clothes workout. It's going to be a clothes workout.

We're going to videotape it and send that and the interview to all teams. Kaepernick's team goes, okay, Saturday is a travel day for teams that are playing on the road, but it's also a day where the teams at home are going to the hotel to stay and they're preparing for the game the next day. Anybody knows in the NFL that Monday is typically a day off for teams,

and so teams work out players individually. They bring them in. Every team does this. They bring them in for workouts on Tuesdays. Nope. Kaepernick's people say, can we get the workout to be on Tuesday, Monday or Tuesday? Nope.

Got to be Saturday. Then Kaepernick's people say. Got to be in Atlanta. Right. It's like, got to be in Atlanta. So why. California, right? Well, no, no. Kaepernick's is in New York. Oh, yeah. But he's like. But why does it got to be in Atlanta. So why? California, right? Well, no, no.

Kaepernick is in New York. Oh, yeah? Okay. But he's like. But why does it have to be in Atlanta? Why is it a location? Why does it have to be in Atlanta? Right. Like.

It could have been right there in New York. It could have been in New York. It could have been in Houston. It could have been. I mean, you can do it in any indoor facility. But I'm sorry. Why Atlanta? Why Atlanta?

Then Kaepernick's people said, okay, can we get a list of the people who are going to be at the workout? Nope. So, hold up. Time out. So, we don't know who's going to be at the workout. Nope. Until we get there. Not going to do it until you get there.

This is the strength. Now Dan Patrick is saying, and I retweeted this, the Dan Patrick show, they are saying that this workout is being organized because of pressure that, in fact, let's go ahead and do this here. Hold on, let me plug it up. Hugh Jackson was on the Dan Patrick show. So check this out, y'all. So Hugh Jackson, former NFL coach. Hugh Jackson, y'all see my iPad? Talk to me. Are you seeing it?

Okay, I'm going to do this. So y'all are going to love this one here. So Hugh Jackson, former head coach of the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals. He found out that he was doing the workout by social media. That's the best. No, no, but it's like, so the deal is, so of course,

y'all, this is all true. So Hugh Jackson is going to be putting Kaepernick through the drills and also who's going to be there to assist is Joe Philbin,

former head coach of the Miami Dolphins. And Jackson was like, damn, I just found out what y'all. Like, he ain't have shit to do on Saturday. Okay, here's Hugh Jackson on the Dan Patrick Show. What is your role tomorrow, Coach? Well, to lead the workout. You know, I'm excited about having the opportunity. I know Colin

when he was coming out of Nevada, Reno, and obviously a sensational player and a really good person. And spent time with him that way. Wish we had drafted him at the Raiders. And obviously, I've watched his career. The guy played in the

Super Bowl. So he's very talented, can make all the throws. I know when he was coming out, he was very athletic. And I'm just, you know, delighted to have an opportunity to be a part of this. It's a long layoff, though, Coach, not playing football. Oh, no, it is. You know, there's no question about that, you know, and obviously competitive football at that too.

But in my mind, just knowing Colin a little bit, if any guy can do it, it's him. I've seen guys take time off before, and sometimes they come back better. I've seen guys that take time off, and they don't come back at all. So somewhere in there is where he will be. More important, the interview process or the workout, in your opinion? I think it's the workout. I think this process or the workout, in your opinion?

I think it's the workout. I think this is about the workout. I think all the other things that need to be talked about, they will be in time. But I think that's somewhat behind us. Let's find out if he has the skill and desire and the determination to play at this level again. And that will somewhat show itself. And then I'm sure everybody else who has the interest will dive into the other things that they need to dive into. Do you think there is a team right now that wants to sign Colin Kaepernick

before this workout even happens? I think there are. I mean, I think people want to know more about where he is, you know, as far as football. Does he still have the arm talent, the athleticism that he's shown before? I think this, you know, gives the league an opportunity to put some of the things that have happened behind us, you know, and move forward. And if his skill level is where it needs to be, hopefully this leads to an opportunity of him playing again in the National Football League. All right, y'all.

So I really like Hugh Jackson, but the reason why that statement is bullshit, the reason why that statement is bullshit, because if any team wanted to see the arm strength of Kyla Kaepernick, they could have brought him in for a workout. So what do we think this really is? Oh, this is exactly what it is. This is that I believe 100%.

Y'all, go to my iPad. This is what Dan Patrick said. I have been in touch with well-placed sources who say that any Jay-Z narrative seems like another distraction to take away from the opportunity facilitated by the NFL for Colin Kaepernick. But they also said that this was sort of a thing where Jay-Z put pressure. Dan says he is hearing Jay-Z pressure NFL to hold Kaepernick workout because Jay-Z felt his reputation took a hit for joining the NFL.

It sure did. Guys, there is nothing logical about this workout. There literally is nothing logical about this workout. There literally is nothing. If a team was interested in knowing if Colin Kaepernick wanted to play football, seeing his arm strength, seeing his footwork, they would bring him in for a workout. Yeah, you know what? Colin Kaepernick, the more I think about him,

he is, in fact, the most dangerous and influential athlete present day. And in fact, he is the closest that African-Americans have ever come to controlling a sports league because he went out really and controlled a narrative and a discussion and they couldn't stand it and went crazy. He controlled a narrative and discussion in one moment with one singular act, and they can't stand it. Because the NFL is a $10

billion a year enterprise on their way to being $15 billion a year, and the NFL's motto is the shield. Right. And how dare you? Nothing is more important than the shield. When you find players because their socks aren't high enough, or when

the pad doesn't go below their knee or the NFL's deal is we want complete uniformity. And you don't take your helmet off on the field or all that. I disagree with you on one point. This does have some logic to it.

This does make sense because it makes the NFL look like they're trying to do something. So from their standpoint, yeah, why not? Until we find out he's not going to play again. Well, they get people talking about it. I can't see the NFL doing that, though. I can't still see them having to play. I can't see you selling a lawsuit.

That's the moment I want to see, when he's playing. Right, and I agree. And I think what I'm saying is the workout itself makes sense as a PR stunt for the NFL. But I can't see him trying to sign him. If we sell on a lawsuit, why would I bring you back? Because you're trying to do some positive PR. You're not trying to bring him back. You're trying to look like, you know, project the image.

But you're putting yourself in the corner. If you bring him for a workout, now you've got to sign him. And that positive PR ends the minute his knee hits that ground. Thank you. Exactly. And what I'm suggesting here is that when you go through the workout, they do not have to sign him. Well, he had this nasty hitch in his throat that they didn't like.

Well, his footwork was off. Well, he had a 4-2. You know, it's not us. We gave him a fair opportunity. And he just couldn't make it. You know, it's not us. We gave him a fair opportunity. And he just couldn't make it. And he couldn't make the cut. We're off the hook now. We tried to bring him back, but his skills are gone.

Here's something that Harry Edwards wrote. This is the Harry Edwards. Yeah, but this is the Harry Edwards who now works for the San Francisco 49ers, works for the team. He was the guy who encouraged and was behind Tommy Carlos and John Smith protesting in Mexico City in 1968. This is

what he wrote. So Jamel Hill wrote, the NFL also isn't slick. If it's true that Cap has to fall in line to get a job, then that's not a real opportunity. That also proves for the umpteenth time that him being out of the league was never about football.

Harry responds, Dr. Edwards, Collin hasn't taken a knee on a football field in three years, and in fact, has moved on from protests to programs slash progress. Issue is not if he will have to fall in line, because he has moved, is leading the line. Yeah, okay. I responded to what Harry had to say. Whether Kaepernick will fall back?

Nah, Harry Edwards. You clearly trust the NFL far more than I do. Harry responded, not issue of trust involved. In due time, all will become manifest. My point is, no need either for Kaep to fall

back to protest. All got the message. Now that over the last three years, he has moved on to programs in interest to progress, but as Malcolm X said, time will tell. When do we get the message now that over the last three years he has moved on to programs in interest of progress but as Malcolm X said time will tell when do we get the message see here's here's why and I got to end the show in about two minutes here's why I'm sorry Harry you did wrong and I have great respect for Harry Dr. Harry Edwards but Harry's wrong facts are facts. Colin Kaepernick had programs after year one. Colin Kaepernick donated a million dollars to a variety of initiatives after year one.

Colin Kaepernick, of course he's not protesting. He's not playing. He's not playing. I know, right? What was that? So to say that, oh, Colin has moved on, no, Colin didn't move on. Colin was doing these things while he was playing. The reality is that the team said, oh, no, hell no, no, no, no. We're going to put your ass in your place.

Right, no. We're going to put your ass in your place. Right. Exactly. Because you can't say how did you keep Malcolm Jenkins in the league? Right. How did you keep Eric Reid in the league? Right. How did you keep Michael Bennett in the league? Who under Harry Edwards' theory has not moved. They have not

moved on under Harry Edwards. Right. Michael Bennett stayed in a locker room in New England. Okay. Kept protesting. And he went to the Cowboys. Jerry Jones was like, everybody going to stay on that line. Toe on the line. Bennett said, another Texas A&M graduate.

Bennett said, the other player said, bro, stay in with us. And he said, my feelings ain't changed. Kenny Stills, still taking a knee. So to Harry, Kenny Steele is still taking a knee and doing programs. Right. So what's the difference? It's because he's playing quarterback. Right. And the team was saying, yo ass started this. Right. You began this. You are going to pay the ultimate price. Right, right. You ain't letting your ass back in. Right.

If they let him back in. I don't trust. If they let him back in and he takes a knee, he's entitled to do that. They're not going to get that far. He is entitled to do that. They're not going to get that far. I'm not saying he can't.

Hold on. We ain't even going to go there. It's real simple. The workout is tomorrow. The Chicago Bears suck. I know. They're not the only ones. Their quarterback sucks.

According to the NFL website, they're not one of the 11 teams that are going to show up. Right. Bingo. Is Miami, is the Dolphins? Your quarterback sucks. Who else needs a quarterback? A third of the league. Are you kidding me?

Did you not see the game? Denver. Y'all suck. Your quarterback sucks. Question is, you going to give him a shot? Let's see. The problem is it's suspect. It's suspect because you rushed it.

You didn't really contact this team. You work out a day. No, it was you're going to do this, this, this, this, this. There's no workout because they knew. If he said no, well, he gave him a shot. The owner had a last say, so they're going to go back to Rod. Hey, we did exactly what you asked us to do. No, no, no.

Hold on. Now we don't have to try. No, you forgot the most important. They don't have to go to Goodell. Yeah. He works for them. Roger Goodell, see, this is the problem

with everybody. Roger Goodell may make 50 million a year. He doesn't run the NFL. The NFL is run by 32 billionaires. So if it's ran by billionaires,

why are they doing it? If it's true what you're saying, it's called public relations. They want to be able to say, we gave him a workout, we saw, we didn't like what we saw. Right there, right there. Don't be shocked when you hear it. He's lost a step. The velocity of his arm. He couldn't throw that out pattern. The velocity of his arm. We've seen some weakness in the last three years. Some deterioration. In fact, it'll probably end up being a pain in the ass PR for him, for Kaepernick.

That's what's going to, unless they play it right. Let's see what happens. They should release the tape. Let's see what happens. If he's doing something really well, I can release the tape. Who's going to catch the ball? Let's see what happens. Bottom line is here.

I'll be texting Kaepernick after the workout, see how it went. All right, y'all. Please support what we do at Roller Martin Unfiltered by going to RollerMartinUnfiltered.com. Join our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar you give goes to support this show. If you give me a square PayPal, square PayPal and cash app, please do so.

It's all about, of course, us really want to be independent, having our own voice, controlling our destiny. I'm going to see you guys on Monday. Tomorrow, I'm going to be in, I'm speaking to the Maryland Black Caucus tomorrow at their retreat. Also, tomorrow in Baltimore, I'm going to be speaking to the Men Impact Change Gala in Baltimore. And we'll be talking about, again,

bridging the economic gap. Trust me, it's a speech you don't want to miss. I'm looking forward to seeing all of you there. All right, folks, I got to go. You have an absolute fabulous, fabulous weekend. I'm still partying for my birthday. And so I'm going to hang out with the family right now. I got to go.

Holla! Martin! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. This is an iHeart Podcast.