#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 1.21 RMU: Trump impeachment trial; 2020 Dems at Brown/Black prez forum; Trump says he saved HBCUs

Episode Date: January 22, 2020

1.21.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: SCOTUS allows Flint residents to sue over water crisis; 2020 Dems speak at the Brown and Black prez forum in Iowa; Civil Rights Attorney Sherrilyn Ifill was asked to give up her seat on an Amtrak train during MLK weekend; Three men linked to the white supremacist group The Base were arrested; Mississippi man jailed for a minor charge sentenced to 12 years for having a cell phone in prison; High school student placed on suspension until he cuts off his dreads; U.S. Navy names an aircraft after black World War II hero, Doris Miller Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Today is Tuesday, January 21st, 2020, and coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered, guess what? Donald Trump's impeachment trial begins in the United States Senate. His lawyers attacked the House rules, attacked what they did, but they somehow can't even speak to exactly what Donald Trump did. Hmm, no shock whatsoever.

Supreme Court gives the residents of Flint, Michigan, a big win against the city. We have the details. Also, eight Democratic contenders defended their records, laid out plans yesterday at the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum, the nation's oldest minority focused presidential forum. Civil rights attorney Sheryl Ifill says she

was asked to give up her seat on an Amtrak train on the eve of MLK weekend by a conductor even though there are no assigned seats on Amtrak. Three men linked to a violent white supremacist group known as The Base were arrested in Georgia. A Mississippi man in jail on a minor charge

has now been sentenced to, get this, 12 years for having a cell phone in prison. Mississippi, really? Mississippi, goddamn. And a high school student was given in-school suspension until he cuts off his dreads. Plus, the US Navy named the aircraft carrier after Black World War II hero, Doris Miller.

Dory Miller. And of course, Donald Trump. He's over in Davos. He actually said today, y'all, that he saved HBCUs. You know what? I might as well put that in the crazy ass white people segment. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin on the filter.

Let's go. He's on it, whatever it is, he's got the spook, the fact, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling, best belief he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks. He's rolling. It's on for Royal. It's rolling, Martin. Yeah. He goes on and says,

we are dismayed that the committees have chosen not to join us in seeking resolution from the judicial branch of this momentous trial. Trump impeachment trial kicks off today. This is Trump's attorney, Pat Cipollone. So let's go ahead. hear what he has to say. He says not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of Dr. Kupperman and Ambassador Bolton. Let the record be clear. That is the House's decision.

And they made that decision. They never subpoenaed Ambassador Bolton. They didn't try to call him in the House. And they withdrew the subpoena for Charles Kupperman before the judge could rule, and they asked that the case be mooted. And now they come here and they ask you to issue a subpoena for John Bolton. It's not right. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Sekulow. Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate,

the matter just said facts are a stubborn thing. Let me give you some facts. It's from the transcripts. Ambassador Sondland actually testified unequivocally that the president did not tie aid to investigations. Instead, that he acknowledged any leak he had suggested was based entirely on his own speculation, unconnected to any conversation with the president. Here's the question. What about the aid? Ambassador Volker

says that they were tied, that the aid was not tied. I didn't say that they were conclusively tied either. I said I was presuming it. Okay. And so the president never told you they were tied? Answer, that is correct. Question, so your testimony and Ambassador Volker's testimony is consistent and the president did not tie investigations, aid to investigations. Answer, that is correct. Ambassador Sondland also testified that he asked President Trump directly about these issues. Oh yeah, Donald Trump's lawyers are trying all they can not to see witnesses called before the United States Senate. I wonder why Ambassador John Bolton has made it perfectly clear

that if he is subpoenaed, he will indeed come. Now, remember, this is the same John Bolton who said that if the House subpoenaed him, he would only comply if a federal judge ruled that he should do so. Donald Trump continues to exert executive privilege on people who actually used to work for him, don't work for him, some folks who never worked for him. They also are claiming now national security is also tied to all of this as well.

So you've got gotta ask the question, what in the heck is going on? Joining us today is Mustafa Santiago Ali, former senior advisor for the environmental justice EPA, Malik Abdul, Republican strategist, and Kelly Bethea, you're the only one without a hat, a communications strategist. Matter of fact, I might put my hat on since, you know,

I was listening. You had it on, why'd you take it off? Because I came from inside, damn it. I don't need to have this on. No need for it. Mustafa, I'll start with you. It is interesting to listen again to Donald Trump's lawyers as they talk very loudly, as they, you know, yell and scream,

and they criticize the House process, and they say, oh, it goes through everything, but they really don't deal with exactly what Trump did. And then they say that, well, the aid was eventually released, but you still held it up because you wanted

Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. So this whole idea of, well, the crime didn't fully go through, so therefore there really was no crime, isn't that why they have attempted murder? You didn't actually kill somebody, but your damn show tried to. You raise a good point, because this is like a bad mob movie

where the fix is in. You know, they get that wink and the nod. So you got Mitch McConnell as the judge who's already been paid off. You know, you got, they tell you, you know, even Trump probably said to him, well, you know, they got some stuff for him. And they're like, don't worry about it. You know, they got some witnesses. Don't worry about it.

We already got it taken care of. And it just plays out like that. So they know that if they actually have to allow real witnesses to come forward, Bolton and others, and share what they know, then it's going to make it much tougher for the country not to say that the president is, you know, in a situation where he may need to be impeached. So it really is interesting, Kelly, to listen.

I was laughing pretty much earlier today. Listening to Trump's attorneys go on and on and on about how this is a colossal waste of time, how it's ridiculous, you know, and, you know, Trump tweeted, you know, read the transcripts, all caps, we did. In fact, the matter is, we did not actually get, they said that he he lifted he lifted

the security clearance to allow uh to allow us to see the transcripts no actually it wasn't a full transcript of the phone call it was actually an edited one uh and that to me is also i think what is pretty funny as you watch as you watch them go through all this and act as if trump literally did nothing i mean when you when they act like they say it's a waste of time, whatever, in my opinion, the only reason it could possibly be a waste of time is because we have a majority Republican Senate, of which the leader of said party within the Senate already said what he was going to do

and is already biased on the side of Trump. So in a sense, he's right. It is a waste of time because in a way we already know what's going to happen in that they are not necessarily going to convict him of a crime that from what we've seen of the hearings on the House side, he is liable for. He very well may be guilty of. It's not right. And it's a disservice to the country for, you know, straight up senators, U.S. senators who were elected to not only uphold the Constitution, but protect the interests of their constituents in their respective states to literally just say, no, I'm not going to do my job.

I'm not going to hold the president liable for something that literally put our country at risk. Okay, I'm really confused here, Malik, because on one hand, Trump's attorneys say he didn't get due process in the House. His attorney wasn't allowed in. They stood in

front of the senators and said that the Democrats conducted depositions in a skiff. Republicans couldn't attend, even though 100 members of the House attended, including Republicans. Then they say

that this is not how a trial is conducted, how a case is conducted. But I don't recall ever seeing a trial that did not have witnesses, that did not have even the introduction of new evidence. So I'm trying to figure out

which one do they want us to believe? And so it's like, ah, this is not really how a trial is conducted. No, this is not how it should be conducted. But we really want this way our trial is being done. And then, of course, they talk about what took place by the House, but the House was actually using the exact same rules that Republicans wrote. So how do you complain about the rules your party wrote?

So we're back at process. I've said this on the show before when Democrats were accusing Republicans of arguing about the process. This is a... These are more process arguments. Right, not exactly what he did, because they don't want to actually address that. They want to argue about process.

Well, the only thing they have to deal with, really, is the articles of impeachment, the obstruction of Congress article and the abuse of power article. I mean, those are the two articles. Now, I do want to say, as far as the phone call, just to point this out, and I've heard people make this argument before,

the transcripts that we have are the transcripts that have existed for every other security issue across the board. I mean, there's nothing inconsistent with how these transcripts were released or even the editing that went on from the four people with extemporaneous notes on that. My understanding is that we didn't even get the transcripts. We got a memo. But that's consistent with process across the board. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold up. Wait, wait. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold up, hold up.

Wait, wait, no, no, no. What Donald Trump said and what his people said is you're going to get a complete transcript of what was said on the call. What was provided was not a complete transcript. As Kelly said, it was indeed a memo. So it doesn't matter what other people did. They said, we're going to release the actual transcript.

Now, what a transcript is, a trans... Like, for instance, if there is a transcript of this show, the transcript is exactly what was said from beginning to end. Not, ah, we left a few things out, we left these things out. And then even the actual transcript that they released, which was a memo,

you do not see in that transcript Trump bringing up corruption in Ukraine, which he said he did. So, again, this is the same process as far as the release that we've had. No, no, no, but you're not answering what I just said. They said, quote... Donald Trump said. Right. And you're correct.

Donald Trump and his administration, they said they were going to release a verbatim transcript of the call. That's not what they released. Well, I don't know if they actually said verbatim, but if they said that they would...

Dude, they did. But releasing a transcript of the call, let's go back to that, which is how all of this started, where people started criticizing the administration. I remember watching, it wasn't just Fox News, but there were people who know the process who said that the process for those documents being the transcript that we initially heard, the initial transcript of the call that we heard, that is a consistent process. Nothing about that process right there

has changed. But what's not consistent is a president asking a foreign entity in order to investigate a political rival. And what's also not consistent is for a president to lie and say, oh, I asked him about Ukrainian

corruption yet in the in the transcript that they even released there's no mention of him asking about Ukrainian pro Ukrainian corrupt right so despite having the full transcript that Trump said that all the full truth or full truthful transcript that Trump said that we would have they filed their articles of impeachment anyway. So absent what I'm saying, absent the transcript, absent any of the documents

that I heard today Senate Republicans said that they wanted, they filed articles of impeachment against the president. First of all, the Senate Republicans did not say... I'm sorry, not Republicans. I mean Democrats. And why did the Democrat, why did Senator Chuck Schumer. Yes, and why did the Democrat,

why did Senator Chuck Schumer put forth that motion? Because the Trump administration had not released those documents. Okay, so, so if the administration withholds documents, okay, then they assert executive privilege. But they didn't actually, and I actually learned that today. I thought that they did.

The administration actually never exerted executive privilege because the House never actually subpoenaed those documents. First of all, Donald Trump exerted executive privilege over, one second, over his former White House counsel, Don McGahn, testifying. The Democrats went to court. The judge ruled that executive privilege did not apply to Don McGahn testifying. The Democrats went to court. The judge ruled that executive privilege did not apply to Don McGahn. They did exert executive privilege. Sorry, with Don McGahn, you're correct. They definitely did with Don McGahn. But you mentioned John Bolton.

John Bolton is another one of those that Democrats did not actually issue John Bolton a subpoena. John Bolton did say that if he were subpoenaed, that he was going to take that to court. Now he's saying that he's willing to testify, as I said on your show last week, and I'll continue to say. No, no, no, no. What he said is if the Senate calls witness, now he's willing to testify, but he wouldn't say that in the House. Those are the games being played.

Really? Really? But both sides are playing games. I mean, we can now admit. Now that we see how people are responding to the House impeachment versus the Senate trial that's coming up, we can kind of see that people are making the similar argument

about the process. No, they're not. Because actually, if you look at polling data, Mustafa, we don't have to worry about polling data. Hold on a second. 70% of Americans say witnesses should be called by the United States Senate. I'm one of those. We don't have to worry about polling data, though. 70% of Americans say witnesses should be called by the United States Senate. I'm one of those.

7% Americans. But the reality, Mustafa, Republicans do not want to do that because they do not want to hear what those witnesses like Lea Parnas, like John Bolton, are actually going to say. Well, yeah, because we know what they're going to say. No, we don't know what John Bolton is going to say.

We might not know what John Bolton's going to say, but... We know the other guy. We know how many people were blocked on the House. If we don't know what John Bolton's going to say, why is Donald Trump fighting so hard to keep us from testifying? Because if John Bolton was going to go before the United States Senate and the country and the world and testify that Donald Trump did absolutely nothing wrong,

that he was in the clear, it was perfectly legitimate, I doubt they will be fighting this harder. You know John Bolton also has a book coming out, too. No, I understand that, but Bob Loz is here. John Bolton will be testifying under oath. Yeah, he will. Under the threat of purging. Mustafa, go ahead.

Yeah, there needs to be transparency. It's amazing how when everyday citizens find themselves in a situation, people will say, well, why don't you just tell the truth? Why don't you just come and share what happened? And we don't follow the same things when it comes to the president, this president. And we've got to make sure that there's actually

real accountability and transparency in the process. And we need to hear from folks. And then allow the American public, along with the Senate, who has to do its job, to make the decisions if they feel like the president is guilty or not. Hold tight. Congressman Adam Schiff is now speaking before the United States Senate.

Go to... Go, please. Paul, he never brings up corruption except the corruption he wants to bring about. It doesn't take a genius. It doesn't take Albert Einstein, it doesn't take Albert Einstein to add two plus two. It equals four. In this case, it equals guilt.

Now, you're going to have 16 hours to ask questions. You're going to have 16 hours. That's a long time to ask questions. You're going to have 16 hours. That's a long time to ask questions. Wouldn't you like to be able to ask about the documents in that 16 hours? Would you like to be able to say, counsel for the president, what did Mick Mulvaney mean when he emailed so-and-so and said such-and-such? What's your explanation for that? Because that seems to be pretty damning evidence of exactly what the House is saying here.

What's your explanation of that, Mr. Sekulow? What's your explanation? Wouldn't you like to be able to ask about the documents? Or ask the House, Mr. Schiff, what about this text message? Doesn't that suggest such as what the President is arguing? Wouldn't you like to be able to ask me that question or my colleagues? I think you would. I think you should.

But the backwards way this resolution is drafted, you get 16 hours to ask questions about documents you've never seen. And then you know what's more? If you do decide at that point after the trial is essentially over that you do want to see the documents after all, and the documents are produced, you don't get another 16 hours. You don't get 16 minutes. You don't get 16 seconds to ask about those documents. Does that make any sense to you?

Does that make any sense at all? I'll tell you something I'd like to know that may be in the documents. You probably heard about, you heard more about the three amigos. My colleagues mentioned two of the three amigos, Amigo Volker and Amigo Sondland. These are two of the three people that the president put in charge of Ukraine policy. The third amigo is Secretary Rick Perry, the former Secretary of Energy. Well, we know from Amigo Sondland's testimony that he was certainly in the loop and knew exactly all about this scheme. And we know from Ambassador Volker's testimony and his text messages and his whatsapps that that amigo was in the loop. What about the third amigo? Wouldn't you like to know if the third amigo was in the loop? Now as my colleagues will explain

when we get to the Department of Energy records that well surprisingly we didn't get those either but any communication between the Department of Energy and the Department of State is covered by this amendment wouldn't you like to know don't you think the American people have a right to know what the third amigo knew about this scheme I'd like to know. I think you should be able to ask questions about it in your 16 hours. At the end of the day, I guess I'll finish with something Mr. Sekulow said. He said, this was a dangerous moment because we're trying to rush through this somehow. It is a dangerous moment. But we're not trying to rush through this trial.

We're actually trying to have a real trial here. It's the president that's trying to rush through this. And I have to tell you that whatever you decide here, maybe this is wasted breath and maybe it's already decided, but whatever you decide here, I don't know who the next president's going to be. Maybe it'll be someone in this chamber. But I guarantee you this, whoever that next president is, whether they did something right or they did something wrong, there's going to come a time where you and this body are going to want to subpoena that president

and that administration. You're going to want to get to the bottom of serious allegations. Are you prepared to say that that president can simply say, I'm going to fight all subpoenas? Are you prepared to say and accept that president saying, I have absolute immunity. You want me to come testify? Senator, you want me to come and testify? No, no.

I have absolute immunity. You can subpoena me all you like. I'll see you in court. And when you get to court, I'm going to tell you, you can't see me in court. Are you prepared for that? That's what the future looks like. Don't think this is the last president.

If you allow this to happen, that's going to allow this to take place. Your time is expired. I yield back. I thank you. So, Kelly, when you look at this this this whole process first of all mitch mcconnell initially proposed these rules this idea that what he wanted to go late into the night clearly that what republicans meant they were like are you out of your damn mind uh because uh he wanted to try to extend this whole deal so he had to change the rules. The rules are, first of all,

they can't even have any food on the floor. They have to stay seated in their chairs, sort of like elementary school. They can only drink water, or they can request milk. That's one of the things as well that they have to be able to do, which is all pretty interesting. But to listen to, again, the fact that you have to be able to do, which is all pretty interesting. And, but to listen to again,

the fact that you have, not to say Senate, Mitch McConnell, Republicans, don't want to confront that this man literally asked a foreign entity to investigate a political rival. And remember, Donald Trump is on record as saying he would ask a foreign entity's help again if they had dirt on a foreign rival. This man does not care about rules or the law.

He will do whatever he wants to do to get reelected. It's very ironic, though, because while the president doesn't necessarily believe in law and order, even in their bias, the Senate does. The Republican side of the Senate does. So what's happening is they are doing everything they can to make it look like there's law and order, while acknowledging covertly, if anything, that the president doesn't care about that. It's like they need the pomp and circumstance, they need the order, they need the protocol,

in order for it to look legitimate, knowing that what the president did was not. And, you know, as a regular citizen, you're asking yourself, like, well, why are they doing that? For what? And it's really just because the Republicans, Mitch McConnell and the like, I can't speak for every Republican,

I'm not going to say that, but certainly the players in this particular game just want to maintain power. And they're literally doing it by any means necessary. And it's clear, because you have literally a rogue president, and they're trying not even to control the rogue president, they're just trying to make it look like he's controllable by way of this, not even impeachment hearing,

but the trial itself. So they're keeping everything, you know, straight and narrow, trying to make it look legitimate, knowing that there's a rogue president, which is why they don't necessarily address his tweets, which is why they don't want anybody to speak at the trial, because that would thwart the objective of making this legitimate. So it's interesting to me. It's certainly ironic. But at the end of the day, ultimately, it's really sad that you would have people

who, again, are supposed to have Americans' best interests at heart, not, like, deliberately, you know, doing the antithesis of what they took an oath to do on our behalf, that they would rather have a president who does not care about even them to maintain his seat in the presidency, to maintain that seat, just for the sake of having a Republican there. So, Malik, does it not concern you, because first of all, you already said you

can vote for Trump again. Does it not concern you that this man is on record as saying that he without a doubt would accept dirt on a foreign rival, excuse me, dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government?

Yes. But you would still vote for him? Yes. So, you don vote for him? Yes. So you don't care that a president of the United States would break the law in accepting dirt from a foreign entity interfering in the election? Okay, but that hasn't happened yet. No, no, no, excuse me. Donald Trump has said if a foreign entity had dirt on a political rival,

he absolutely would accept it. Yeah, but you're asking me to ask... You're asking me to answer a hypothetical. No, no, no. Donald Trump said that hypothetically, that's something that... So for you... And you asked me, would I have a problem with that? So for you, your deal is, well, let me wait to see if it

happens, and then I'll think about it? Um, yeah. I mean, it hasn't happened so you're asking me I continue to support Donald Trump because he said he would do something that he hasn't done. Now he hasn't actually done that. That's

something that maybe we can look at at that time but that assumes that this particular issue is the only issue in which I would actually support any president for that matter. But how I feel about it, how I feel about what if Donald Trump says that he's going to get dirt on an enemy

or something like that, it actually has nothing to do with the articles of impeachment. It does. That's what he tried to do. He actually tried to get, he withheld aid from ukraine because he wanted them to investigate joe biden that's what he was who happens to be his political rival i

personally think that whether point i i personally think that whether donald trump whether joe biden was running or not donald trump would have asked for that investigation. Of who? Of Joe Biden in Burisma. Oh, come on. I actually think that whether Joe Biden was running or not... But that's still wrong. And as I've said on this show many times before,

that there was nothing perfect about the call. As I've said on this show... Now, hold up. But your boy Trump said it was a perfect call. So you can ask Trump how he feels about that. No, but that's the guy you're voting for. He said it was a perfect call. It was an absolutely perfect

call. And so you can ask Donald Trump about that, but you've never seen me come on the show and actually defend that. And if anybody would like to point that out on any show that I've had, you actually can do that. So I can say again that I don't think there was something perfect about that call whether or not this is something that warrants an impeachment is something that I disagree with I think they should have gone the censure route

as opposed to impeaching the President of the United States for something that Congress has determined is not a crime well I would think once... Hold on. What do you mean? What? Com... What? That he was not... He was... No article of impeachment actually deals with a crime. Did... Or does it? No, I'm... I mean, you guys can answer it. I mean, which one of the two articles of impeachment

deals with a crime? Mustafa, go ahead. I mean, for me, this is high crimes and misdemeanors because it places our country in a very difficult position. When you are leveraging resources to get what you want out of a situation, a president should never be in this situation. And what the president has done now is that he's created this gravitational pull where he has damaged the people who are around him. So now there is also a look that needs to be at Vice President Pence, who supposedly has known also about some of the things that are going on. No, I'm telling you that one of the folks who wants to be a witness has shared with folks, who went on CNN,

who went on a number of other shows and shared with folks. And it doesn't stop there. Now, that's why we need to have an honest trial, where folks are allowed to come forward and share the information and folks can take a look. But who said they're not, though? What McConnell said is the same thing that I actually said on the show last week.

No, the Republicans made the point. They're going to follow the process where they're going to have both sides come in and present their arguments. No. And then they're going to consider. No, they're not. That's literally what they said all day.

No, you're wrong. What they said is, is that what they said? When you just heard Schiff talk about 16 hours. Schiff. Yes. When you heard Schiff, what you heard them talk about there was, you heard them talking about them going forth

and opening arguments. That's what they said. So what's going to happen is, they're going to present opening arguments. Okay. Then, after opening arguments, they may say move to close. Right. They may.

But you're not saying that's exactly what I just said. No, no, no. So they're not going to have a trial. They're going to have opening arguments. Okay. Well, second part then. So the first part will be that both sides get to present their arguments. Then they will consider as part of that second part, not only whether or not they're going to be able to submit written questions for some of the witnesses, but whether or not they're going to have additional witnesses come testify.

Well, that's I mean, but that's literally what they said, that on the second part, that they would then consider whether or not they're going to, and they've said it right in front of Justice Roberts, whether or not they're going to bring witnesses, I'm sorry, submit questions, or whether or not they're going to bring additional witnesses. We don't know if that's going to happen. My guess is maybe outside of John Bolton, if you have him at all. I don't think you're going to probably get the CNN guy that you mentioned. I don't think. I don't think you're going to probably get the CNN guy that you mentioned. I don't think I don't think what was called, though. Well, everybody that testified during the actual House and they're actually going to testify. I don't know. I don't know if it's I don't know if it's because that's my concern. Yeah, but I don't know if they're actually if there is a need for those who testify to actually come back. It's a trial. Yes, they need to testify. But I'm well, within the length of time that the Senate actually talked about today, need for those who testify to actually come back. It's a trial. Yes, they need to testify.

But I'm, well, within the length of time that the Senate actually talked about today, I don't suspect that they're going to have all of those witnesses. And that's the problem because that is a rule that they imposed so that they couldn't be able to. But why not call them if you need them? What do you mean if? It's a trial, Malik. It's a trial. You need witnesses in a trial.

But they've already voted for impeachment in the House. That's irrelevant. Well, how is that? But it's the trial. You need witnesses in a trial. But they've already voted for impeachment in the House. That's irrelevant! The articles of impeachment came to the Senate. It is the Senate's job to have a trial. A trial involves an opening argument, questions, and a closing argument. You can't question nobody if there ain't nobody there.

Well, we don't know if they're going to bring I mean, how many times do I have to keep repeating that? They made it clear. They ain't bringing witnesses. We don't know if they're going to bring, I mean, how many times do I have to keep repeating that? They've made it clear they ain't bringing witnesses. We don't know if they're going to bring additional witnesses there or not. It's not additional witnesses. It's witnesses, period. Not even additional.

Not even one. Not additional. Not even one. But we don't even know if they're going to do that. We know they're not going to do that because they said that they didn't want to witness it. That's not what they said. Because that's not what they said. But here's what we do know. That's literally not what they said. Here's what we do know.

So tell me, who is the person who said that we're not going to call any witnesses at all? Lindsey Graham? What Republican? Mitch McConnell? What Republican on that floor today said we are not going to call? It doesn't matter what happened today. So if it doesn't matter what they said at the start of the hearing, how does the rest of the stuff matter? Because it's already been established.

So you're assuming this. This is truly. No. We know what the country is. This is like a mad TV skit. It is. Because you guys don't. We know what the country is asking.

You were sitting here just acting as if everything they've said for the last two weeks just didn't exist. I'm talking about today. We're talking about what happened today, not two weeks ago. We're talking about what they said today. We can close this out because we know what the country is asking for. They are asking for there to be a fair trial with witnesses.

They asked for that in the House too. And that is both Democrats and Republicans. And how about this here? The White House Budget Office violated the law when it froze U.S. military aid to Ukraine according to the Government Accountability Office. The same GAO who, I think it was about seven instances

where they said that the Obama administration broke the law, and they did the same thing with George Bush. So just so everybody knows out there, the GAO, this is, they're valid. The things that they say are valid. But just know that the Obama administration. They're valid? Absolutely.

I mean, it's a valid group. I'm not trying to discredit the government accountability office. Because your party is totally discrediting them. And the GAO, as I'm saying, the GAO, if you go back and look, there's plenty of evidence there. The GAO, there were several instances during the Obama administration where the GAO said that they actually went against government regulation. So, I'm sorry, law. Stop. What is it?

Regulation of law. Law. And what was that? There were several instances that I can actually. What were they? Well, I'll pull them up through a break or something, Roland, because I'm not, I don't know all seven. Can you cite one? Well, I'll pull them up through a break or something, Roland, because I don't know all seven. Can you cite one? Well, no. You said there are seven. Well, no, I said there are seven because

that's exactly what I researched. I don't know who they are, but what I will do during the break is actually look some of those up. I'm just saying. I'm just saying, because I can that's something I'm willing to actually back up on air as far as... Kelly, what's real interesting here again, the Republican Party does not want witnesses. The Republican Party... So we're back to again, the Republican Party does not want witnesses.

The Republican Party... It's over your back to that. The Republican Party does not truly want to find out exactly what happened. What they want is to quickly shut this down, vote to free Donald Trump, and get on with it. That's what their goal is.

Their own attorney said, why are we doing this? There's an election in November. Wow, okay. And that's what I was saying, you know, in the beginning. Like, again, they are doing this for the purpose of pomp and circumstance,

for the purpose of protocol, for the purpose of saying that they did it. It's like, oh, we followed the rules. Oh, we had a trial. That's what they want it to look like so that, you know, at the end of the day, they can say, oh, well, we tried. But they didn't try. There are several loopholes here. There are several things wrong with this, you know, trial. Mainly the fact that it's not going to really be one. You know, it's... You have opening argument. You have closing argument.

That's the only two things that are established that are going to happen. This is not moot court. This is not an appellate-level court in which you don't have witnesses. But it's not even a criminal trial. It's not a criminal trial. Hold up. Stop. So if's not even a criminal trial. It's not a criminal trial. Hold up. Stop.

So if it's not a criminal trial, why does your party keep trying to use criminal precedent for what took place here? The same reason that both sides are. No, no, no. You didn't answer my question. What I'm saying is, what you have here is, you have Republicans, including Trump's attorneys... Making criminal... Absolutely.

No, no, no. Trying to equate a criminal trial with an impeachment trial when you can't compare those two. Because that's exactly what has happened since the impeachment hearings actually started, even in the House. It was the same argument. This isn't like a new argument that people are making when they were saying that this isn't a criminal prosecution. And that was the... But, again...

But I can't speak for... So, when Trump's lawyers stand up there and say, well, we didn't get to cross-examine witnesses in the House... Criticize them for it. No, no, no. There is no... You don't get to cross-examine... Criticize them for it. I'm not done.

You don't get to cross-examine quote, witnesses in the House because that's not a trial. The House proceedings operates essentially the same way a grand jury does. In a grand jury, you do not get to have your lawyer sitting in the grand jury room. You do not get to cross-examine witnesses. That is the purpose of the trial. But they're saying that that's what happened in the criminal trial.

I mean, we heard Representative Doug Collins and all of them yell and scream, Jim Jordan, all of them. So which is it? Is this actually a constitutional process or is it a criminal trial? Which one is it? Because now even Alan Dershowitz, who now is changing his

tune, might say, oh, no, no, I was wrong 22 years ago when I said that no crime had to actually be committed in order for a president to be impeached. Now he's saying that he's one of Trump's lawyers. He's even saying that even if the president did all of this,

you still can't impeach him. Which one is it? And that's his opinion. He's a scholar. He can be criticized that for, just like the constitutional scholars. No, no, no, I'm asking you, which one is it? Well, you have to ask him about that. No, no, I'm asking you.

I'm asking you. Well, it's a constitutional process that is definitely political. It's not a criminal process that we have here. But I have those seven instances, if you would like for me to read them. Okay, I said ask for one. Give me one. This was the Obama administration violated section 503 of the Consolidated Security Disaster Assistance and Continuum

Appropriations Act. What was that? What did they do? In 1909 after the Secret Service reported. No, no, no. What did they do? Not 1909. What did they do? That the Secret Service reported they had overspent on candidate protection in 2008 by 51 mil—I'm sorry, $5,100,000, and used the money from another program to cover the shortfall.

So, DHS— So, one of the— DHS failed to notify Congress 15 days in advance of the reprogramming. Okay, so— So, the GAO said that there was something wrong that the Obama administration had done. So they used money from one... They did not notify Congress within 15 days. They were using money from one pot to use another area. That seems to sum up what I've read.

So reconciling a budget is a high crime and misdemeanor. But that's not a high crime and misdemeanor, according to the GAO. That's my point. According to the GAO that you guys were just high-fiving, according to the GAO, they were in violation. I wasn't high-fiving, I was stating what they said. This was the Department of Homeland Security. The Obama's administration. But that was not President Obama. We are talking about President Trump and the decision that he made. That was Obama's administration. But we're talking about

something that Trump did right Okay, whatever you guys say Now we're separating the Department of Homeland Security from the administration I work for almost 25 years in the federal government. I've in federal government, too, so I know how it works. Exactly, and you do know how it works. But it was the Obama administration, though. If an agency or an agency head does something, they are responsible for that action. Absolutely. Right?

We are talking about the president of the United States. So if Barack Obama had picked up the phone and done something illegal then yes he should have if folks decided to pull him up on charges or wanted to investigate that's fine well we are so big just give me one second we are talking about President Trump yes intentionally picking up the telephone no one made him pick up the telephone made the call and try to coerce the individual, allegedly, to do something or you won't get this money. He made that decision. And within 90 minutes of the phone call, the Pentagon was notified, freeze the money within

90 minutes. But they said there was no connection between those two. Fair point. But again, it's the same GAO. But they said there was no connection between those two. Right. Really? Fair point. But again, it's the same GAO. So the GAO doesn't distinguish between the Department of Homeland Security and the Obama administration. Luckily, the GAO is not the only one who has a problem with what the president did. Well, there was six other instances on here, too.

Remember, the GAO said that, but it was the Trump Department of Justice who also said, oh, no, nothing really happened here, so no need to actually investigate. Right. And then that's why the House did what they did because William Barr said, oh, nothing actually happened here. He cleared it. All right, folks, let's talk about

what happened in the Supreme Court. They ruled today that it won't block a lawsuit by residents of Flint, Michigan who want to hold city officials accountable for the lead contamination water crisis that caused their illnesses. In 2014, the city switched to water from the Flint River and months later announced there was fecal coliform bacteria detected in the water supply. The legal battle began in the months that followed. Lawyers for the city asked the justices to step in and block the lawsuit, claiming their clients had immunity from such suits.

Mustafa, this is an important legal victory here. Of course, Karen Weaver was defeated when she ran for re-election. But these residents still are trying... The city made the decision, and those emergency managers, officials, to switch water source. And the impact here, you got black kids

who are gonna have to be monitored. These children have to be monitored for the next 30-plus years, potentially their children's children, as a result of what took place here. Yeah, the kids will have neurological damage. It could be at varying levels. It will lower IQ points.

It will make it more difficult for them to ever, you know, be able to, you know, make it through school and then be able to compete for a job. And, you know, there's a lot and then be able to compete for a job. And, you know, there's a lot of interesting things that came out of this. Most folks don't realize that the city could have literally for a few dollars a day avoided this whole thing that's now going to cost billions of dollars. And I often say that people are making decisions and they're putting a value on certain people's lives. And in many instances, unfortunately, it is African-American and Latinx communities and indigenous communities who are on the end of the stick, if you will, in that process.

And you know, we had people went back and took a look. There were women who were having miscarriages because of being exposed to the lead that was in the water. You had the things with the Legionnaires disease. And that's why some of the folks also in another case were actually facing manslaughter charges. So this is, this is really serious. And unfortunately, we've got 1.1 million kids in this country who have been lead poisoned. And of course, Flint is one of the most egregious cases. And that's one of the reasons we need this

administration and every administration to take this serious because we could actually eliminate this problem if we were really focused. Well, we certainly look forward to seeing what the next step is when it comes to these lawsuits taking place there. All right, folks, I didn't want to play this here. So, you know, we were talking about impeachment and, of course, how Republicans are just saying one thing and doing another. So here is Jamie Harrison. He, of course, is running against Lindsey Graham in South Carolina for the United States Senate. He did a video talking about impeachment using Lindsey's own words. For the good of the nation, I think, it would serve us all well if we thought about this one idea. After we're all dead and gone, do you have something to present history that will withstand scrutiny where everybody had a chance to have their say in a reasonable way, in a focused way, so that history would judge us based on the facts and based on a meaningful hearing, not just on the political moment?

And if we think about that, it's very important to me that we leave behind a legacy that meets the motto of American justice. Well, we all know that Lindsey Graham has simply sold his soul to Donald Trump. There are any number of things where he has said one thing and now says a whole other thing. Remember, this is also the person who talked about how ridiculous and how evil Donald Trump would be and how it would be a shame if Republicans elected him president. And this is the same Lindsey who kisses Trump ass at every turn. Such a shock.

The Iowa Brown and Black Forum was held in Iowa yesterday with eight presidential candidates in attendance. The purpose of the forum, which was established in 1984, is to focus national and international media attention on Latinx, African-American, Asian-American, and other communities of color and their issues in Iowa and around the country.

How many people of color in Iowa? And also to motivate those voters to participate in the political process, it is the oldest minority-focused forum in the country. Here's some of what took place yesterday. The number of black police officers serving in South Bend cut in half while you were in office, in spite of diversity initiatives.

You've been at the center of scandal around the demotion of the first ever black police chief, Chief Darrell Boykins. A recent Root and Young Turks investigation found that black police officers working in South Bend repeatedly reached out to your office to discuss systemic racism and didn't receive a response. found that black police officers working in South Bend repeatedly reached out to your office to discuss systemic racism and didn't receive a response. Why didn't you meet with those officers?

And what exactly did you know about the racism they faced while they were serving? So first of all, I met and spoke with black officers all the time. Now, it is true that sometimes when an individual officer, often as a consequence of being disciplined was appealing to the mayor's office and trying to go around a process that we asked them to respect a process how does that process work well we have a board that is appointed that makes decisions about hiring and firing and discipline i directly appoint that board and i saw to it that that board not only was diverse but actually majority af but actually majority African American because these racial questions are so important. I get a lot of questions about why I removed a black police chief.

Almost never do I get a question about why I appointed a black police chief in the first place. It was largely because of his expertise and strength when it came to community policing. But when federal investigators came to South Bend and were investigating practices in the department, and I did not find out from him, that changed our relationship and changed my ability to have him in the role that he was in. Look, this is a painful issue in our city, and this is a painful issue in every city. But when we're dealing with it in our community, it's not from the luxury of a committee room. We're not debating these things in the abstract. We're dealing with them.

And on my watch, in our city, we led the region in transparency on information about what was happening in policing. For example, publishing data on the use of force down to the incident level. And that's part of why use of force went down on my watch. We acted to make sure that we had that kind of diversity on the board that was in charge. We acted to make sure that community activists were empowered in helping change the policies on how policing works. We didn't get it perfect, but we have had to face these issues on the ground and we got results to show for it. Your agenda is radical. You said... No, it is not radical. Well, many people would say that it is in comparison. Well, in comparison to Donald Trump, I guess it's...

Right, and even some of the other candidates running for the Democratic Party. What's radical about my agenda? Well, let me just finish the question here. You yourself said that your strategy to winning the presidency is a gamble. No, I never said that. You were quoted saying that in a BuzzFeed profile. Yes. Or gamble?

No. So you were describing the strategy of expanding the electorate, getting people to participate. Well, by a gamble, I meant I can't guarantee that it will work. You know, you can't guarantee anything will work. And so my question is, and I would imagine most folks in this room would say, like, the stakes in this election are very high. Very high. Right? And so, you know, a lot of folks say we don't need this guy Trump

in in office for another four years and so if if your strategy is a gamble and this shouldn't be taken as a game then why shouldn't they go with us you know you're taking the point that I made is that every candidate strategy is a gamble no candidate who's gonna come before you is gonna be guaranteed that their strategy will work all right here is my strategy. You said that my agenda is radical, correct? I said yes. In connection to again, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm going to answer you. Okay, I really will. Okay. Guaranteeing health care to all people through a Medicare for all program, is that radical? Raising minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. Is that radical? Making public colleges and universities tuition free,

canceling all student debt through a tax on Wall Street speculation. Radical. Dealing with climate change. Radical. Immigration reform. Radical. Criminal justice reform. Radical. Protecting a woman's right to control her own body. Radical. gun policy radical? All right, Senator. I beg your pardon. Do you feel that the Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted? I think they have. But if you know my record, I'm just going to flat say I never, ever, ever, ever had. Not once. I'm a United States Senator because of the African-American community.

The African-American community turns out in my state every time I've run at the same percentage in an off year they do in a presidential year. And if you notice, I have overwhelming support from the community because I've never taken for granted. That's what got me involved in politics in the first place. Why is Senator Sanders leading you with black voters under the age of 35? He is not leading me with black voters under the age of 35. Look, just all I know is I'm

leading everybody combined with black voters. I'm winning. You got everybody. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's get this straight. Name me anybody who has remotely close to the support I have of the African American Community National. Well, actually, Vice News just did a poll that showed that Sanders is a bit behind you but he does have significant black support he's way behind and away you know better you know better There's a reason why I have more support of elected black officials,

three former members of the chair of the black caucus, black mayors. I mean, come on. On a very personal level, why do you think that black people like you so much? Because they know I know them and they know I care from the time I've been 16 years old. I came home from law school and Dr. King had burned down. What does it mean to know, to say you know black people? It means that I've worked in the east side. I deliberately went and worked for three years to make sure I was the only guy, only white guy that worked on the east side because, you know, I wanted to understand.

Alright, so that was three. I wish we had some of the other candidates as well, especially Elizabeth Warren there. Kelly, when you listen to some of that, first of all, some of the questions were maddening, all right? You know, for the brother to try to push back on Joe Biden, look, ball don't lie. The reality is his lead over Bernie Sanders in black voters is huge. It's huge. It ain't small. It's huge. Yes, it's Bernie Sanders leading young voters. Yes.

But once you get 35 plus, Biden is smoking them. And my thing is, even like I would be one of those younger voters in that demographic. I'm not going to say who I support because it's too early on. But at the same time, you have, you know, just because you have the young vote doesn't mean you are guaranteed an election. We still, we don't outnumber our elders

yet. So we still... No, no, no. Young voters do outnumber baby boomers. Baby boomers. But baby boomers blow their ass away when it comes to voting. That's kind of what I'm saying.

So a demographic thing is one. So you can have all the numbers you want to. Right. But do you vote? But do you vote? That's the key. And that's my point. I'm not saying just, you know, on a census level.

I'm saying, like, people who vote. Like, we don't outnumber them in terms of getting the vote out. So just, you can brag about having my vote, you know, in an abstract sense. But until you get me to the poll, it's not really going to matter. What was the other part of your question? Just in general, what I think about this. I think that, you know, every election season, I feel like if any race,

black, white, indifferent, there's always some level of pandering there. And that's what I saw in the clips from Vice. I want to actually see what's going to happen should they get elected. If you say that you support me, put your money where your mouth is. You really gonna cancel debt? Do it.

You really want to do Medicaid for all? Do it. And I want to see a plan, I want to see it in action, and within the first 100 days, I want something on your table that you can sign, you know? And if you don't get to... If you don't get elected, what are you going to do? Like, how are you going to still push your platform such that it'll be part of the American lexicon to actually get it done? One of the things that also, I hate, I absolutely detest a lot of people.

Look, if you're going to cite something, cite exactly where it's from, but a lot of people, a lot of people. Look, if you're going to cite something, cite exactly where it's from, but a lot of people, a lot of people. Very general. Right. Now, if you want to say... Be specific. If you want to say a recent poll,

this is the poll that says, Senator Sanders, that your agenda is a radical agenda, okay, got it. But, again, when you were declaring that it's radical, and Sanders was right on my turn, I'm like... He hit it out. Y'all think it's radical? and Sanders was right on my turn, I'm like... He hit it out. Y'all think it's radical? Yeah.

Nope. This radical? Nope. Yeah. That was an alley-oop for Sanders. I mean, he just gave him that. Of course, what would he say? You know, me, just looking at this politically,

now, I remember, well, I go, I remember back in 2007, ironically, when Tavis Smiley was trying to have that black and brown debate at, I think it was a Republican debate, and only four of them, I don't think, showed up at Morgan State. And so I like the fact that we're talking about these issues. Part of my concern is that, you know, we are always asking, well, when are you going to talk about issues affecting black people? When are you going to talk about

issues affecting black people? And then we typically have debates about what those questions are. So some of that definitely has to do who is moderating these type of events. But me, just politically, and especially as a Trump supporter, I looked at this and I said, wow, these are the people who may be going up against Donald Trump in November of this year. I don't think it's something that's going to ultimately end up well. Obviously, I think that Donald Trump is going to win. But I just from what we saw last, I think it was last week's debate to the black and brown debate that's going on here. I do not foresee any of them being having the fortitude to even challenge Donald Trump and put up a good fight.

Nonsense. Absolutely nonsense. That's okay, but that's my... First of all, that's utter nonsense. First of all, let's just state what are undeniable facts. Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Secondly, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote by only 78,000, Mustafa, in three states. So let's not act like somehow Donald Trump is this unmovable force who is somehow going to steamroll. Not only that, when you look at current polling trends, the approval rating of Donald Trump across the board nationally is minus 12 percent.

When you look at George W. Bush, 2004, when you look at Obama, when you look at George W. Bush, no president that was reelected was in negative territory in approval numbers. When you look at polling data that shows Donald Trump going head to head against Joe Biden, against Bernie Sanders, against Elizabeth Warren, he loses in those polls. And so Biden has a much larger margin,

and then it gets smaller with Sanders, and it gets even smaller with Elizabeth Warren. I think the only person who he beats really is Buttigieg. Definitely beats Klobuchar. So this notion that somehow Donald Trump is just this invincible force ain't true. Right, yeah. And folks got a much better ground game

than they had last time. You know, folks know where they got to focus. Yeah, they won't be skipping Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Exactly. So, you know, it's okay to live in an alternative universe. And yes, anything is possible. But folks, you know, their game is much tighter than it was.

That does not mean that there still shouldn't be many more resources going to organizations on the ground, especially organizations of color, who can actually help to educate people and help to turn people out, and then folks vote how they vote. The interesting thing, because I was actually in Iowa, I'm going to tell you it was crazy cold,

seven degrees below zero, and anybody who can come out and caucus and can go to the forums and the debates, I give respect to that. I can see why folks would say there's not a whole lot of folks of color who are there, but a lot of folks did come from across the Midwest to participate in this event. And one of the things that I thought, for me personally, because the candidates are well rehearsed on many of the core issues that they're going to have to talk about, was that at the end of each one of their time,

they had a 60-second sort of, you know, quick-answer type of thing. And much of it was focused sort of on pop culture stuff that many of us would know the answer to. And if you are coming to a black and brown forum, then you should make sure that you are ready. Your folks should prepare you or you should just internally have that knowledge.

And it was interesting seeing how some of the candidates did not have answers for some of the things that we would feel are just the basic everyday things that we do know, experience. But it was definitely interesting. And it's been a- You know what? You know what?

I don't give two shits about pop culture questions. Yeah. I mean, here's the deal, okay? We ain't electing a president, well, they put this fool in now who watches TV all day. But we're not sitting here electing a president who's gonna sit here and live in a pop culture world. Because you know what? You can sit here and millions of people can vote for

American Idol on The Voice. But if you're sitting your ass at home and you'd rather vote on American Idol and The Voice and not vote for the person who's going to impact your life in a significant way. And yes, and let me be real clear, when you understand what a president does, yeah, there's not a single issue. Let me be real clear. There's not a single thing that you actually care about that the policies of a president does not touch. Not one. Take your pick. You're sitting at home right now and you're saying, man, you know what? I sure wish they would sit here and pave these roads. Well, guess what? That's a city or a county issue, and they're likely going to be applying for federal funds. And who is going to be the person proposing that budget and who eventually will

sign that budget, even though Congress appropriates, is going to be the president of the United States. It impacts you when it comes to your voter ID, because if your state chooses to pass a law, will the Department of Justice support that law or will they actually oppose that law? The Trump administration, they have stood with Republicans who support voter ID. Obama stood with the plaintiffs who were against those voter ID.

I can go on and on and on. And so for these people who... And so to me, it's a waste because when you look at the critical issues that we're dealing with, I mean, really major issues, that to me is you spend every single moment dealing with that stuff. To me, that's what you deal with. And then also, you've got to deal with the fact that you also, if you are one of these candidates,

you're running against an absolute liar. Today in Davos, Donald Trump gave his speech. And this idiot actually said this. My administration has also made historic investments in historically black colleges and universities. I saved HBCUs. We saved them. They were goingBC use we saved them They were going out and we saved them You looking at me why

We know he lied I ain't looking at you. Oh, okay. Oh. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Don't put the camera on me. Put it on Malik's ass. I'm looking away from the camera. I refuse to look at the camera. Now, hold on.

Just in case y'all didn't hear that clearly, let me go ahead and go back to my iPad, please. Oh. ...have already seen their home values rise by more than $22 billion. My administration has also made historic investments in historically black colleges and universities. I saved HBCUs. We saved them. They were going out, and We saved them. They were going out and we saved them.

We're removing roadblocks to success and rewarding businesses have already seen their home values rise. So no, Mr. President, you did not save HBCUs. I get your point. And I know that sometimes there's an awkwardness when you're talking about things that you've done for the black community, but the manner in which you chose to do so right there kind of invites the criticism. There's a lot that you can say about the record funding that you've gotten for HBCUs or the Pell Grants or schools like Spelman or North Carolina A&T

and other schools who got grants that are for their STEM programs. I mean, there's a lot that you can say. You can call it Pell Grants and those grants are two different things. I'm sorry, not Pell Grants. Grants for their STEM programs. So, you know, there are lots of schools,

HBCUs that have actually benefited from that. But you make it a little difficult for those of us out there who support you when you make a very general statement that's really not true, that you saved HBCUs. And I don't know if you actually mean that or is it that type of awkward...

I don't know if he actually meant that he... He meant it. I don't know if he actually really thinks that. I think sometimes that the president... Did he think? I think possibly not. Somebody wrote a speech. That he did not.

Now, I would be surprised if saving HBCUs was actually part of the speech. We know that our president ad-libs. Okay, dude. Now, that wasn't ad-libbing. HBCUs. I was on the telephone. No, no. That part...

He had to rehearse it. But I'm saying saving... You always know when Donald Trump is reading. But I'm saying, well, that part, whoa. He had to rehearse his speech. But I'm saying, I'm saving. You always know when Donald Trump is reading. Yeah, but I'm saving the saving part. I can't imagine, unless he just really pressed it, but I can't imagine Jaron or any of those saying, yes, Mr. President, you saved HBCUs.

He's good for ad-libbing, and when he ad-libs, he generally gets himself in trouble. He's good for lying. I mean, himself in trouble. He's good for lying. I mean, that's really all there is to it. He lied because he did not say HBCUs. You're talking to, what was the world economic? He literally said they were going away.

That means that Howard and TSU and Spelman, North Carolina A&T and and Tennessee State, and Texas University, and Paul Quinn, they were just about to just evaporate. But the great white hope came in and said, I decree that you are saved. I mean, obviously that's not true. We have 105 HBCUs in the country right now, Bowie State, my alma mater included. Bowie State's not going anywhere.

It hasn't even been threatened to go anywhere for quite some time, if ever. Campus is doing better than ever, actually. I can't say that they are in jeopardy of losing anything. If anything, they are in jeopardy of losing anything. If anything, they are, you know, setting themselves up to actually grow exponentially within the next 10 years, even sooner, actually. So I know my HBCU is not going away.

Howard University is certainly not going away. Check this out. You're going to love this one, Kelly. So go to my iPad, AP fact check. Trump's Davos remarks rife with distortion. Rife. What's number one? Black colleges. Black colleges.

Now, they say Trump signed a law in December restoring money that lapsed for several months when Congress failed to reauthorize some $255 million in financing on time. The money came back because Senate education leaders reached a compromise on a broader dispute that had entangled financing for black schools. Y'all,

$255 million. You said $105 million. So does Donald Trump really believe that $255 million, let's just be clear, that he did not, that wasn't even him? I mean, literally, it wasn't him. The House passed it, and Lamar Alexander and the Senate held it up. And then they finally went through.

Does he somehow think that 105 HBCUs can exist on $255 million? Well, I mean, let's be fair here. That's the money that Congress actually put up. So it's not like the president actually gave them that number. This is what Congress, which is the House... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Let me... Do you need me to play the clip again?

We know what he's... Well, let's separate what he said from the actual facts. First of all, I just read the facts. The fact of the matter is this here. Congress was reauthorizing a program that already existed. The House passed it. It went to the Senate. Senator

Lamar Alexander wanted to do something that was different. And so therefore, they did not pass it in time. With negotiation between Senator Lamar Alexander, HBCUs in the state, you had Congresswoman Alma Adams in the House as well. They finally got Senator Lamar Alexander

to agree to the funding of this program. But when you stand before all these rich folks in Davos and say, I save HBCUs, they were going to go away, but I saved them. Yeah, well, again, we know. He's lying. We do know that that's not true. Right, he's lying.

And as I said on your show before, what Lamar and what Senator Alexander was actually doing is exactly part of what they ended up passing anyway with the reforms in the Higher Education Act. So that is part of the reason why it was held up. We know the reason why it was held up, but he did not say them. That's a lie. But we understand

that, but if we can just focus on what... Does he understand that? But if we can focus on what the facts are... No! We're trying to focus on the facts. Your boy, the guy who you're going to vote again, is a serial liar. He can go to the next one. He may be that, but can we talk about what the facts are? He said, y'all, that this is a blue-collar boom.

Since my election, the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners has increased by plus 47%, three times faster than the increase for the top 1%. Y'all, he lying. Mining and logging industry, according to AP, lost 21,000 jobs last year. Manufacturing has only added 9,000 jobs in six months, while the economy gained more than $1.1 million during that period.

Hmm. So? Now, here's what it says. AP, he's right that net worth among the bottom half has risen, but from such a low base that no boom can be claimed. The Federal Reserve says the bottom half has just 1.6% of the nation's wealth up from 1.1% when Trump took office. That's down from 2.1% in 2006.

Y'all, he's trying to talk about, oh, how much it's just increasing the top 1%. Hell, the top 1% got so much damn money. We know they increased when they that damn tax cut helped them out in a huge way. Let me also go to the next one. Hold on, I ain't done.

For the first time in decades, we're no longer simply concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. We're concentrating and creating the most inclusive economy to ever exist. Flat out lie. Wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of a few. The richest 1% of Americans own 32% of the nation's wealth, about the same as early 2017 when Donald Trump was inaugurated. The middle class share, defined by the Fed as those from the exact middle of the wealth distribution

up to the top 10% remain at about 29%, despite the slight gains of the bottom half. The percentage of Americans who own their own homes, a key source of wealth building, has improved modestly under Trump, but remains below the level seen as recently as 2013, and

we also know, for African Americans, it is the lowest since 1968. Huh. So what if... Trump, quote, it is the lowest since 1968. Huh. So what? Trump, quote, we have the greatest economy we've ever had in the history of our country. And I'm in Europe today because we're bringing in, bringing a lot of other companies into our country with thousands of jobs, millions of jobs in many cases. Lie.

AP. of jobs in many cases. Lie. AP, the fact, his persistent depiction of the U.S. economy as the greatest ever is false. As for jobs pouring into the country, investment by foreign companies has slumped under Donald Trump. Foreign countries invested, directly invested $268 billion

into the U.S US economy in 2018 a decrease of nearly 220 billion from its record left breaking level in 2016 when Barack Obama was president why does he keep lying Malik well I'm pretty sure that those I didn't actually listen to the speech itself but I'm pretty sure that he was actually given that data. And some of the things that you mentioned, whether or not it's, it was the... So why does his people keep lying? So whether or not some of the things that you mentioned, like the up 1.4 or so percentage points, but it's not up from the same level in 2006 or something, this is something the statisticians and people who create talking points

use literally all the time. Oh, no, no, how about this here? No, Mellon, Mellon, you follow sports? Yes. Okay. If I scored 40 points in a game... But that's not how it works in politics, though, Roland. You know that.

If I scored 40 points in a game... Yes. And then the next game, I scored 28. I can't say I almost scored 40 points again rolling but no no facts are facts facts are facts so why does your boy lie but we know why does he lie we know that politics why does he lie we know that politicians routinely no why does your guy who has who has lied nearly 17,000 times since president. He lies on average 22 times a day.

We know, you know, just as everybody on the panel knows, that these type of data points are things that campaigns, organizations, they fund data to benefit their purposes. We have never seen a liar, Kelly, in modern history. We have never seen, in modern history, Kelly, we have never seen a liar, Kelly, in modern history. We have never seen in modern history, Kelly. But, Roland, he's not going to not be a liar. We have never seen a liar like Donald Trump. That's not going to change. But that's not going to change, though, Roland.

But you could vote for a liar. That's not. I voted for liars. Right, but you vote for the greatest liar we've had in modern history. Well, I voted locally for liars. No, no, no. So you're going to vote for the greatest presidential liar in modern history. I voted locally for liars. No, no, no. So you're going to vote for the greatest presidential liar in modern history? I voted locally for

liars whose policies directly affect me while the president does not. I ain't saying local. I'm talking about president. Well, local actually matters. Yeah, okay. Kelly, bottom line is this man, Kelly, go ahead.

You can call him liar, but I just want him a liar. This man is a massive liar. But I just want to say this. This man is a massive liar. But I just want to say this. What Donald Trump could have said, and I don't know why they didn't actually have that in the talk of points. No, no, ain't no one could have said. We're discussing what he said. What Donald Trump could have said is that he actually, because of his signature, that now HBCUs have a permanent funding mechanism. That's actually true. And if anybody would want to accept that, that's fine. But that's actually true. So bravo, Donald Trump. Kelly, go ahead. So I'm sorry, I keep laughing.

When Malik asks why or how his administration gives him these facts or whatever, and Roland said, well, why is his administration lying to him? This is almost textbook behavior of a narcissist and someone who is legitimately obviously delusional and is so invested in self and self-image and ego that he can't comprehend anything that is not what he wants it to be so in order for frankly his administration those closest to him specifically,

to still have a job, they have to give him information in such a way that not only feeds his ego, but confirms what he thinks is already true. And as crazy as that sounds, that's what's happening. He did not save HBCUs. That is a lie. And we all know that.

But he doesn't. But we've spent 30 minutes talking about something that we know is not true. But we can talk about what he did do, though. But, Malik, here's the deal, though. Rolling, rolling, rolling. The guy you voted for, his administration backs up the lie. We know, Mustafa, that according to the reporting from NBC, senior intel officials do not want to testify in public

because they don't want to be asked questions that contradicts the lies of Donald Trump. We literally have intel officials who are saying, damn, we don't want to have to get questioned in public because he lied, and now when I get questioned, I'm going to tell the truth, and I'm going to get cussed out because his ass

lying. This is an administration that backs up the lies. Go ahead. I mean, here's the reality. Let's hit on the two things that we've been talking about. One, if you're truly a champion for HBCUs, then you would significantly increase the amount of resources that are needed there. And he has.

Not significantly, but he definitely has increased it over the Obama administration. So you're right. It's not enough. Go ahead. It's not enough. Here's the second thing. It's not enough. I like to ground truth things.

And, brother, if you'd like to ride with me when I go back home to Appalachia, I will take you across the state. And we can go across a couple state lines. We can go to Kentucky. We can go to West Virginia. We can go to Western Pennsylvania. We can go to Ohio. And what you will find is that the people who were in poverty before are in poverty now

and in some instances even in a greater. So if you have an economy that is working for all people, why is it that these folks, if you have the greatest economy ever, why is it that they're still in this situation? Because they've always been, though. But see, you're missing the point. If you say you are the savior of people

and people can vote for whomever they want to. But we know politicians say that. But see, that's not acceptable. But it was acceptable when Obama was in office. So these poor people in all of those states, they were poor under Obama. We saw the numbers before that things have gotten worse. So you're saying they weren't poor under Obama?

No, actually, what we're stating is this here. But were they not poor under Obama? Hold on, since you always talk about wanting to lay the facts out, what we also understand is that under President George W. Bush, you had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Obama gets elected. Got us out of it. Obama gets in.

All of a sudden, unemployment goes up for African-Americans nearly 17%. It's increasing. We were losing, on average, 500,000 jobs a month. He stopped that? He put stop all of that. But then you got Mr. Clueless, who then wants to claim that, oh, my God, I've done all these great things. But the fact of the matter is, you actually did not put the things in place to fix the economy.

That's one. Two, you look at black folks. One second. One second. I'm not done. This is Obama's economy. Excuse me. Excuse me. Black folks losing 53 second, one second. I'm not done. So this is Obama's economy there. Excuse me. Excuse me. Black folks losing 53% of all

wealth. And that is because of the home foreclosure crisis that took place under President George W. Bush. So, the point I'm making is this here. When somebody claims that they've done all these different things, you have to look at what was the condition of the country

when Obama walks in. What was the condition of the country when Obama walks in, what was the condition of the country in those eight years, and then what is the condition of the country when it's left. If I, if I, if I say, Malik, you can stay at my house, and I left your ass a clean house, just because you wiped the counter down one time don't mean that you can then claim that you cleaned the house.

All you did was wipe down one damn counter. That's what you're dealing with. But again, what you have is Donald Trump, somebody who will knowingly and easily lie. And then when called on it, they will defend the lie as opposed to just don't put the lie in. They could have easily averted the lie by just stating

what you've actually done. But we know this here. But we know this here. When you say when you say they were going away. I say them. So again, why does he

lie? Hey y'all, on Friday evening Sherrilyn Ifill, the Director of Counsel at the NWACP They were going away. Well, and I criticized him for that. So again, bye-bye to Eli. Hey, y'all, on Friday evening, Sherrilyn Ifill, the director of counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, tweeted about an incident on an Amtrak train she boarded in D.C. just two days before the national holiday celebrating the birthday of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It reads, Amtrak, I'm being asked to leave my seat on train 80, which I just boarded in D.C. There are no assigned seats on this train. The conductor has asked me to leave my seat because she has other people coming who she wants to give this seat. Can you explain? She decided, like Rosa Parks,

that she would not give up her seat. As she continued her Twitter tweets, I laid out the facts and made clear that I know that it is absolutely contrary to policy and unacceptable to pick one passenger from an unassigned seat and demand she move. Lead conductor, a man just has his mouth open.

The woman agent conductor now drops her head. Amtrak has since apologized after first trying to justify what happened. Sherilyn said there's an investigation and we wanted to reach out to her to have her on the show, but she says she's not talking until they do so. Three men linked to a violent white supremacist group known as the base were charged with

conspiring to kill members of a militant anti-fascist group in Georgia on Friday. Three other members were arrested on federal charters in Maryland and Delaware the day before. The men are Luke Austin Lane, Michael Helterbrand, and Jacob Caderly. According to the FBI, the base is a group of hardcore neo-Nazis that operate as a paramilitary organization. They have declared war against minority communities within the United States and abroad. Unlike other extremist groups, it's not focused on spreading propaganda. Instead, the group aims to bring

together highly skilled members to train them for acts of violence. Alright, folks, let's also talk about this story here. Hmm. Willie Nash was in a Mississippi County jail on a misdemeanor charge when he asked a guard to charge his cell phone.

Now, we all know that was stupid as hell. But then the phone was confiscated, and the man was slapped with a 12-year prison sentence for possessing a phone in a correctional facility. A jury found Nash guilty of breaking cell phone law in August of 2018. The judge told him to consider himself lucky because given his past burglary convictions,

he could have received the maximum 15-year sentence. Malik, this is the problem with this here. The judge calls him out. The guy had a burglary conviction more than a decade earlier. He had lived a clean life, had not been in trouble whatsoever until this incident.

I mean, how much of a dumbass is this judge that you would literally, and I'm saying dumbass for a reason, that you are going to expend state resources for 12 years because of a cell phone violation?

And I don't think it was just the judge. Wasn't it the state Supreme Court? No, no, no. The judge gave the sentence. They appeal, and the state Supreme Court affirmed the decision by stating that, well, that the person was a violation of the law. Yeah, so the Mississippi State Supreme Court said, yeah, it's good. So, yeah, so bad on both ends. The notion that somehow you can, and I think he actually wrote a dissent,

the person who wrote the dissenting opinion, King or Justice King or something, actually said that we're locking someone up who actually did not commit an actual crime, like where no people were hurt. Victimless. Yeah, a victimless crime. Yeah. Yeah, a victimless crime. Um, yeah, sorry, a victimless crime.

And so you're gonna lock him up, and the notion that somehow... And this is where, you know, and... You know, people who've been in courtrooms and stuff before, you know, they kind of cringe at it, but, you know, when I read and listen to... Well, you know, we could have locked you up for 15 years, but we gave you 12 because it fits within the stat...

You know, the, um... It's within the statutory limit that we could have actually gave you 12 because it fits within the stat, you know, the, um, it's within the statutory limit that we could have actually given you 12 versus 15 for a phone that you had when you came in there. And I read, they said, well, he was texting with the phone from jail. That's irrelevant. It's still a victimless crime. You mentioned Judge King, Justice Leslie King, the only African-American justice on the non-member

Supreme Court. Go figure. Uh, no, go figure. It's Mississippi. Well, you know it ain't that too many black people sitting on state Supreme Courts now. It ain't no go figure. It's Mississippi. This is what he wrote.

The case seems to demonstrate a failure of our criminal justice system on multiple levels because, this is what the story says, because it's not clear whether Nash was properly searched or told not to take his phone into his cell when he was booked on a misdemeanor charge. So they still don't know that

even after it going to the Supreme Court, which means that he was told that. So the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, but their ruling was that the sentence is legal. Ah, because they ruled on the legality of it, right. because they ruled on the legality of it. Right, so they ruled on the legality of it. So here's the deal. Nash, now 39, didn't seek to overturn his conviction, but argued on appeal that his August 2018 sentence

was grossly disproportionate, violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. And it says, one justice said, though harsh, Nash's sentence falls within the statutory range. Yeah. Kelly, this is just stupid.

Yeah. It's stupid. And it's stupid because, hold on, let me read this for you. A 2012 Mississippi law said a sentencing range of three to 15 years, and this is the stupid Mississippi legislature. This is a problem. The law they passed, a range of three to 15 years for inmates found with deadly weapons,

cell phones, or components of cell phones in state jails and prisons. They put deadly weapons and cell phones in the same law. In the same law. Which means that you would get the same punishment.

And when you take into consideration just how corrupt the correctional system is in Mississippi, this kind of just falls in the same line of that. I was looking up this situation down there now. I can't remember the name of the correctional facility. Parchman. Parchman, yes. So there's stuff going on down there from corruption to deaths to buildings not up to code, all of these things.

And if it weren't, honestly, if it weren't for the cell phones in the jail, nobody would know. And I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but at the same time, obviously the offense doesn't measure up to 12 years. The justice said this in Mustafa Nash did not do anything nefarious with his phone. He certainly did not hide his phone from law enforcement. Both the prosecutor and the trial court

should have taken a more rehabilitative rather than punitive stance. I also blame the punk-ass DA. Yeah, most definitely. You sure? And again, that's why our vote matters. Mississippi got a whole lot of black folks, whole lot of black folks who can vote,

and even more folks who we need to vote so that you have the right types of people in office. Real quick, folks, at Barbers Hill High School in Houston, student DeAndre Arnold was given in-school suspension because he refused to cut his dreadlocks. The dress code says that their hair must be off the shoulders, above the earlobes, and out of the eyes. DeAndre said he wears his hair in compliance with the dress code,

but after the Christmas break and three months before graduation, the school district changed the dress code policy. DeAndre is not allowed back to school and can't walk in his upcoming graduation until his dreadlocks are cut. His mother says she has tried to reach out to board members and the superintendent in hopes of coming to a resolution but hasn't received a response.

But she also made perfectly clear to Mustafa, he ain't cutting a damn thing. I don't blame him. People told me years ago I needed to cut my hair or, you know, I'll never be able to make it up the ladder and all this other kind of foolishness. And for this young brother, when he ready to do an internship, come see me. I'll make sure it's covered.

Uh, Kelly, it's a... Why do folks really spend lots of time on some silly-ass stuff? I mean, and for me, it just feels like jealousy on some, you know, subconscious level. Because what does your hair have to do with how well you do in school? What does your hair have to do with how well you do at a job?

You know, I go back to California recently passing that law that you cannot discriminate someone based on their hairstyle. And the fact that you even need a law on the books for that is just absolutely ridiculous. It's asinine, really.

So I commend this young man and his mother for standing with him and saying, no, you are not going to touch a hair on my son's head. And if we have to take this, you know, to the media in order for, you know, this issue to be in the spotlight, then we'll do so. But, you know, what's on my person has nothing to do with how well I did in school. He's almost a straight-A student. Scholarships are coming up, all these things, and you're going to hold him back because you can't lock your hair? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's dumb. So I don't think that there are two parts to this. The initial ban, if you will, that's something that, you know, we can debate, but it was a school policy. The problem that I have is what changed it. Remember? Right. That's what I'm getting ready to say. Right.

That's what I'm getting ready to say. The problem that I have is with the change. In the middle of the school year. Yeah. In the middle. Why? change. In the middle of the school year? Yeah, in the middle of the school year that then they change their policies to where he, you know, it seems as if he can't be accommodated within that policy. Now, we know that there's hair discrimination. I mean, you just talked about it. You say that,

you know, we shouldn't have a need for it, but there are cities, I think D.C. is looking at the same thing of passing a hair discrimination law. So we do know that exists. We knew that, and I don't know if it's still policy, at the Hampton Business, Hampton University's business school, where they couldn't have lots and braids. Now, but that is something from years ago that we know exists.

So where, I don't know, where is this? First of all, this is in Mountain Bellevue, Texas. Okay. The young kid, they're from Trinidad. And the thing is, he says he wears his... Go to my iPad, please. This is a photo of the young man, okay? But he says when he goes to school,

he wears his hair up. He pins it up. But they changed it. So the rule is it can't touch the collar, ears, or the face. When he wears it up, it's not doing any of that. But I think this is good that this is being challenged, though, because it needed to be.

But they changed it also that if your hair is long enough, even when it's up, if it's higher than the level, then you can't do it. Which is why they're saying he can't walk. So what happens with girls with their hair? Right. It's bananas. And it must be just for men. I can't walk. So what happens with girls with their hair? Right. It's bananas. And it must be just for men.

I can't imagine it's for women. It must be for men. But this is the thing for these types of... We can say gender discrimination. This is the thing for these types of school boards. It's totally bullshit. It ain't got jack to do... There is nothing to do with education.

Right. Nothing. If a white kid want to wear his hair long, whatever, I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with education. Right. Nothing. Yeah, it doesn't. I just think, I just think,

I think these kind of laws are stupid. It's like, I think, look, it's dumb as shit for me that the New York Yankees have a rule that you, if you were a player for the Yankees, you can't have facial hair. Hmm. Right. Oh, wow.

I didn't know that. Yeah. The guy, Gary Cole, one of the Astros pitchers, who has his beard. He got to shave his beard. The Cincinnati Reds used to have this law, have the same rule, same thing.

No facial hair. Wow. When Dave Parker, went from the Pirates to Cincinnati, Dave Parker was, -"Don't have a beard." -"Oh, no, you gotta shave your beard." I mean, it's like, like, really? Yeah, that's... Like, what, what, what the hell

does a mustache... Right. ...have to do with hitting a ball? Th-th-th-these rules to me are the type of idiotic rules that, that have nothing to do with education. And this board should be ashamed of themselves for even engaging this and to say,

no, you will not be able to cross that graduation stage until you cut your VATs bogus. And I would hope, I would absolutely hope that I would hope this family, they shouldn't have to be spending this money, would go to court and get a damn, um, uh, injunction. And yes, for gender discrimination. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

But that's what you're dealing with today, these crazy-ass folks in these school boards. Our last story, the U.S. Navy named an aircraft carrier in honor of an African-American for the first time during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration. Dory Miller, the first African-American to receive the Navy Cross for his courage during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, helped evacuate the West Virginia battleship before it sank and fired a machine gun at Japanese attackers until he ran out of ammunition. Navy Acting Secretary Thomas Motley said the USS Dory Miller will serve as a reminder of the nation's pursuit for justice and as a tribute to its namesake. So certainly congratulations to the Dory Miller family.

All right, folks, we are out of time. Of course, let me see. Are they still running their mouths on the floor of the United States Senate talking about impeachment? Looks like they are. And so, again, we'll be covering this, folks, as it continues. Don't forget to please support Roland Martin Unfiltered

by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com, joining our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar you give goes to support this show and what we do in order to bring you information you're not going to get anywhere else. So, again, you can use Square, PayPal, or even Cash App. we do in order to bring you information you're not going to get anywhere else so again we can use square paypal or even cash app we appreciate all of you uh who have contributed to the show i want to thank also the folks who have contributed to us uh on our youtube channel during this show

uh thank you so very much uh if you are on youtube about a 1700 folks on youtube right now you can contribute right there. All those dollars come back to us as well. So we certainly appreciate it, folks. Thanks so much. Y'all take care. Holla! This is an iHeart Podcast.