#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 12.4 RMU: Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin's family; Impeachment hearing update; Visiting While Black

Episode Date: December 5, 2019

12.4.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin's family for $100M; Impeachment hearing update; Woman accuses a Black playwright of racism after viewing 'Slave Play'; crazy ass white woman called the police on a man who was visiting his aunt while Black; Alabama a statue of Rosa Parks is unveiled. #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org - Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. I wouldn't change a thing about our lives. Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Thank you. Martin! Thank you. Thank you. Today is Wednesday, December 4th, 2019, 113th anniversary of the only fraternity that matters, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated. All right, folks, in today's show, bitch-ass George Zimmerman,

he's suing the family of Trayvon Martin for $100 million. Yeah, that's what I call George Zimmerman, bitch-ass. Today was the first impeachment hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee. Congresswoman Karen Bass will join us to talk about what took place today. And a white woman accuses a black playwright of racism after viewing his dumbass slave play. Yeah, I called it that. And if that's not enough, another crazy ass white woman calling the cops on a man who was just trying to visit his aunt in New York.

Plus, in Alabama, a statue of Rosa Parks is unveiled in Montgomery. We'll show it to you. I have got some other stuff we'll talk about. It's time to bring the funk. Oh, also, Gabrielle Union speaks out after her five-hour meeting with NBC. That's being fired from America's Got Talent. I will let you know what took place. It's time to bring the funk.

I'm Roland Martin, unfiltered. 06 style. Let's go. He's got it. Whatever the miss, he's on it. Whatever it is, he's got the scoop, the fact, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling.

Best belief he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics With entertainment just for kicks He's rolling With Uncle Roro, y'all It's rolling, Martin Rolling with rolling now He's funky, he's fresh, he's real

The best you know he's rolling Martin Martin Martin Alright folks, our top story, bitch ass George Zierman. Every time I talk about him, that's what I will call him, a man who needs to go straight to hell. Of course, he was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in 2012.

He now is suing the family of Trayvon Martin, Florida prosecutors, and others involved in the case he claims rested on false evidence. Yeah, $100 million. Reach out to attorney Ben Crump for an interview, but they're not doing any media right now. He did have a release this statement, have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is, another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others. This plaintiff continues to display a callous disregard for everyone but himself,

re-victimizing individuals whose lives were shattered by his own misguided actions. He would have us believe that he is the innocent victim of a deep conspiracy, despite the complete lack of any credible evidence to support his outlandish claims. This tale defies all logic, and it's time to close the door on those baseless imaginings. Joining me right now is Amisha Cross, political commentator and Democratic strategist. Also, Robert Petillo, civil rights attorney and Kelly Bethea, communications strategist. Robert, I'll go to you as a lawyer. What this punk ass trying to do?

What he's doing is promoting a new documentary. There's a new documentary film from right-wing media called The Trayvon Hoax. They scheduled this lawsuit to be filed on the same day they were supposed to premiere in Florida, in the same county where the film was set to premiere. So this was just meant to drum up publicity for that. It was a completely frivolous suit.

He named Ben Crump as a defendant, the Martin family, the prosecutor, the state's attorneys, right through the suit and the car over here. There is no legal or factual grounds for it. What I'm hoping is that the Martin family and everybody involved will counter sue him on this for damages, for attorney's fees. He hasn't gotten the message yet that he's not above the law. He's gotten away with so many things.

He believes that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to. And there's always going to be a strong subset of white supremacist and conservative conspiracy theorist who will be there to financially support him I believe he sold the gun that he killed Trayvon Martin with at auction he has gone on book tours book signings speaking engagements to people who completely support the these sorts of extremists and because of that that's just fees into this with this new documentary that Trayvon hopes that he has us talking about, which is his entire goal, to grow up publicity for it.

Oh, yeah, we're going to talk about his punk ass, Amisha. His attorney said that he faces daily threats and suffers from PTSD. Good. I don't give a damn. Absolutely. I mean, and we also have to look into Larry Klayman, who's a very interesting political figure and attorney in and of himself. He chased after, you chased after the Clinton impeachment.

He was the attorney. He's going through a lot with the Trump administration now. He's a close friend of theirs. He is somebody who likes to chase conspiracy theories. He's also somebody who is known to support white supremacists and others who have committed these types of crimes before. I think that in this case, you see a George Zimmerman who obviously has no remorse for anything he did. I don't think that that time will ever come for him. On top of that, he continues to make himself or pretend like he's

a victim and he's in want for money at this point. So he's trying to do whatever he can to sail the last vestige that he possibly can get to make sure that he remains viable over the next 10-15 years. Kelly, obviously it's a trash ass lawsuit. He's a trash attorney. He's trash. And to file this against, again, not only the lawyer but the family of Trayvon Martin shows how pathetic of an individual he is. It's absolutely pathetic and it's just, I can only imagine what his, Trayvon Martin's mother is going through at this time. My understanding is that she's running for commissioner. Yeah. In Miami-Dade County.

And this is the last thing she needs, especially from Zimmerman himself. Like my colleagues have just said, this is the same man who, you know, basically admitted to killing her son. But just by way of racism in Florida was acquitted. And then to top it off, you know, the selling of the gun, the documentary and the list goes on. And he was even, you know, pulled. He was arrested again for something completely unrelated. Again, the charges just didn't stick. And it's just something that is just so infuriating to me. And, again, I can only imagine what Martin's mother is going through. Because if there's one thing that Zimmerman has, it's the caucasity to pull something like this off.

It's disgusting. It's consistently proven. I mean, this is a guy who, after Trayvon, he went out and he has charges of beating women. At the end of the day, he has never really faced any type of true criminality, like being incarcerated at all for any of these things. And it's a very interesting system that allows for this person to continually abuse the system and yet seem to somehow reap benefits. Well, that's what he is. He is a shameful, empathetic individual. But we all knew that anyway

uh and so uh that's what's going on so great comment there from ben crump folks go to my ipad please uh as uh kelly mentioned sabrina fulton she is running for county commissioner uh brittany pacnetti uh sent this out she says george zimmerman is trending for being an audaciously racist fool with trayvon martin mom sabrina Fulton is running for county commissioner in Miami. Let's redirect energy to her and fill her coffers with donations and volunteers. Hashtag I'm with Sabrina. Of course, her website is Sabrina Fulton dot com. It's Sabrina Fulton dot com.

All right, folks, speaking of speaking of a, I just saw this story here in Landon Journal Constitution, and that is Dwayne Walker, who works at CNN, claims that, filed a lawsuit, he previously sued CNN over discrimination charges, filed a lawsuit where he says that a supervisor there threatened to kill him. According to his Atlanta Journal of Constitution story, the story here says that in August in the bathroom, Whit Freeze, vice president and group creative director, August 15th of 2019, the CNN center in Atlanta told him to just drop it. And Walker, of course, what are you talking about? It was a lawsuit that Walker had filed in May.

Well, he filed that in May. And then he said, or, and Freeze said, if you fuck with my money, I will kill you. Well, Walker says, five days after the encounter, Walker went to CNN Human Resources, met with the HR manager. They placed Walker, the brother, on administrative leave the next day.

He's been on administrative leave for the last three months and claims that nothing has been done against the person who made that comment against him and that nothing has taken place. Of course, again, he had previously filed a lawsuit against CNN, a class action lawsuit. First filed a complaint at EEOC, then a federal lawsuit in 2015. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, noting that he wasn't qualified for seven of the nine positions he claimed he should have been considered for. But he has a new attorney who filed another lawsuit. I mean, this is a continuation, Robert, of what has been happening at CNN with black employees filing EEOC

complaints and lawsuits since Jeff Zucker took over. A number of those were settled. A lot of people, I know some people who got seven-figure settlements out of this deal. Well, I think a big part of what goes into this is now that we have the, over the past couple years, people become more familiar with labor law. I actually got a certification in labor law when I was in law school, and at the time it was something where people did not quite know the human resources process, the filing of a complaint process, and what the outcome should be. So it was very easy to simply pay people off or to fire people, and they never actually

exercised their right. I think it's a great thing now where people do feel that their rights are being infringed upon, there have been a violation, they know how to go through the proper channels, go through your direct supervisor, go through human resources, file your EEOC complaint, get your right to sue letter, going through the entire process

to make sure they get some justice out of it, and not simply being a victim of a far more powerful bargaining partner. This, Amisha, these stories, interesting, because again, what often happens is in media, folks say, you know, don't sue, don't sue, it's going to end your career. But there were a number of black employees who simply got fed up, who filed the EEOC complaints. Many did not want to go forward with the lawsuit. They went ahead and took the settlements that were offered.

And, again, like I say, I know a couple of folks who got seven-figure settlements after they said they were being targeted, folks saying they were coming in late, and then they actually had documentation where other people they worked with were coming in late, and they said, oh, I'm sorry, but what did you say to them complaining about not getting promotions, things along those lines? No, I like that you point that out because I think that there has to be an understanding

that a great amount of bravery comes in when someone does decide that they want to file an EEOC complaint, when they want to report this level of misconduct, especially from some of these major networks, because the idea of retaliation and actual retaliation and your name being basically mud in the industry is very real. So when you have folks who decide that, you know, they're fed up and this is what they're going to do, it makes it better for the next people coming along. But I do think that for those CNN has a. And CNN has a very documented problem at this point, specifically when it comes to the targeting of minorities. And I think that they're going to

really, they're going to have to really come to grips with it because the more public this becomes, the worse it's going to become for them. Because to argue and to continually throw shade at some of the other networks around a variety of things, from media bias to other things, but pull down the veil of where you are, and you're steadily disintegrating the amount of minorities you have there, and pushing the ones out who are currently there is going to be a real problem. And Kelly, this was one of the reasons why, with NABJ and Vice President Digital, why we were critical of seeing the lack of promotion of African Americans. And we also called on their new owner, AT&T, to do a civil rights audit across the board to have an understanding of what are the conditions

in the climate like for black employees at CNN. Absolutely. And I echo the sentiments of my colleagues here. I applaud this particular employee for going and suing, because I've been in situations, and I know plenty of other people who have been in situations where they feel like their voice can't be heard, and therefore, like Robert was saying, just kind of don't exercise the rights that they know they have, but maybe for whatever reason, be it, you know, you're early in your

career, you need that connection down the line, it just doesn't pan out the way that you want it to be in your favor. And like Amisha was saying earlier, like, I mean, CNN just has an incredibly racially biased problem there. Like they have virtually no anchors in primetime that are people of color with the exception of Don Lemon and maybe one other. That's it. So again, proving my point that in terms of the demographics who are watching CNN are not reflective of who is actually in the anchor seat and that needs to change. And the fact that this man was threatened,

his life was threatened in the workplace, and this is still the kind of message that CNN is sending out to not only the person who's the complainant in this situation, but also the rest of the employees who are actually watching this unfold while they are employed. That sends a message to the entire organization that is not employee friendly, which is just absurd. You have to stop that.

So here's an update on the case of Gabrielle Union. Of course, she sued, excuse me, not sued. She claimed that there were issues of workplace misconduct for America's Got Talent. They announced in November they were not renewing her contract. She was getting $12 million a year as one of the judges. They claimed that they were sort of cycling out two of the judges, both who were in their first year. The two male judges, Simon Cowell, his company owns the show,

and Howie Mandel, who's been there for 10 years, they were not being, quote, refreshed. She talked about, of course, a racial joke that Jay Leno told that never aired, but that was unsettling to some of the other employees, those who are Asian, she talked about, getting excessive notes about her appearance and her hair, saying it was too black from executives with the network NBC. Well, about two hours ago, Gabrielle, she sent out this tweet because she and her attorneys had a meeting today with lawyers and executives from NBC, Fremantle, as well as Simon Cowell's company, Psycho. Go to my iPad, please. This is her tweet.

She says, we had a lengthy five hour and what I thought to be productive meeting yesterday. I was able to, again, express my unfiltered truth. I led with transparency in my desire and hope for real change. What I found to be interesting here, Amisha, is that in the statements from NBC, in the statements from Fremantle, they said, we look forward to hearing her complaints

as if she never said anything before. Now that raises a serious question because if she had previously said things before and it did not go up the chain of command, that's a company problem. Exactly. And again, kudos to you for pointing it out because by all intents and purposes and all the comments that she's made, it seems as though she had reached out about these issues previously on multiple occasions. She reached out when they first commented on her hairstyles because they said that she changed it too much. It was too ethnic for their audience, cold, too black. They made some racially derogatory comments about some of the actual participants in the show who happened to be young African-American males and how they felt that they were ghetto and that they weren't going to be representative

of the country if they were to proceed and move forward in the competition. I think that what Gabby was trying to do was not only showcase and be who she is, but also to fight for minorities that she felt were discriminated against. And she made those comments very clear to leadership. Now, where they went beyond those conversations she initially had, that's up for debate. But I do think that she definitely made those and she made that clear even in the announcements. But beyond that, I think one of the bigger issues that NBC has is that this isn't the first time somebody has stepped forward and had a conversation about how they treat people of color, specifically women, and how this show in particular,

America's Got Talent, has treated women. Because they have a habit of cycling out the women within six months to a year. They've consistently done that. And the women who come in tend to be whiter and they tend to be younger than the woman who they just cycled out. So there's a pattern of what's going on here. And typically they get rid of them without even giving them a real reason as to why they're being cycled out. In fact, Kelly, Sharon Osbourne, one of the previous judges, blasted it as being a boys' club,

saying that she found it grossly unfair that she was made to fly commercial, but then when Howie Mandel came, they gave him a plane to fly back and forth. Howard Stern, he even said that Simon Cowell runs this show as a boys' club and blasted that in essence defending Gabrielle Union. But that's not something that is new news,

especially for people who were, you know, privy to what was going on in the first place. One of the first articles I read about this situation talked about the insiders at America's Got Talent and how they also confirmed Gabrielle Union's accounts of what was happening specifically with Jay Leno and his commentary regarding Asians, her hair critique, and they tried to disguise it as continuity issues, you know, and that's ridiculous as well, because how many white women have been in and out of that host seat whose hair has changed, hair color has changed, probably eye color, too.

You know, everything has changed in the span of one episode for some of these women. So it again, the hypocrisy is there and it is documented. But what Amisha was saying earlier about NBC having an issue, it brings to light what I remember of Cameron Hall and what was happening with her contracts and how she was basically being prepped to sit in the anchor seat for the Today Show and then for whatever reason, she just wasn't there and was replaced with Megyn Kelly.

No, she wasn't on The Today Show. It was the third hour or the fourth hour, one of those hours. One of them. And then when they signed Megyn Kelly and that hour was hosted by her and Al Roker, was doing very well in the ratings, they wanted to bring in Megyn Kelly, and the ratings for that hour went down. Went down, and now Megyn Kelly is no more. So my point being is just, again, like I'm just echoing what my colleagues

are saying at this point, but there's just a huge problem and a disconnect when it comes to minority entrepreneurs and anchors and reporters and those in the media with these big organizations. And it just needs to come to an end. Rob, I want to come back to you again from a legal standpoint. So again, when I see this statement and then when I see a statement from NBC and Freemantle that we look forward to hearing more about the issues Gabrielle Union had. OK, if you're a company lawyer, you probably are saying, what the hell? Because to release a statement saying we look forward to hearing these things, it implies this is the first that we've heard about it. Which means that if this is the first that you've heard about it, and all of a sudden she gets booted for the show, a so-called refresh, somebody might be having to write the check for the remaining two years she was on the contract and fork over $24 million.

Exactly. And just on the employment law side of it, understand that when you make a complaint, when you're going through what's called the interactive process, that's where HR representatives from the company need to sit down with you to accommodate and try to resolve any employment issues you have. So if her hair is an issue,

then you negotiate, you mediate that out. You don't just wait until you're ready to terminate her and say, well, this is the issue, this is why we terminated you, because of the hair issue, because of continuity, because of a refresh or whatever else. And just on a side note, like being black, you can't win for losing sometimes.

If one of the Kardashians wears some black hair, they say, oh my God, Khloe Kardashian invented black hair. Or Miley Cyrus starts twerking, she invented that too but when you as an african-american woman where's your natural black hair that's a problem when white kids want to take black culture and black rap music and dance and all that stuff is fine if a black kid actually wants to express that on a TV show now they're being too ghetto like it's like what standard you have to want to hold us to? Well, and the crazy thing here was, again, it's a refresh. They were in their first year.

Exactly. Her and Juliana Huff were in their first year. And I also want to. Three-year contract. Sears are three one-year contracts, but the first year. And the ratings were really strong. That was my point. I'm like, a refresh when your ratings went up this season is the highest of their last two seasons so i'm like

and it's all from gabrielle union that was the thing so like if you look at the ratings and where they came from and where the most interact especially on social media the the interactions regarding america's got talent was predominantly on Gabrielle Union's page and her affiliated page. And who had never watched the show. Never watched it. And that's why we have that phrase. That's that bullshit right there. I mean, that's what that is.

I mean, anybody can see right through. So she's saying, oh, so I had these complaints. Now, all of a sudden, my contract doesn't get renewed. Oh, and what you have here is, of course, Simon Cowell being the 800-pound elephant. And what you have is him being, quote, the big star, his company owning the show, production deal with NBC, previously had the X Factor, was on American Idol, and so they've made tons of money. So nobody wants to run afoul of him. Somebody's going to be writing a check. But Simon Cowell was even known for these things on those shows. Take American Idol, for instance. He drives white eyes every black person on the

show. But it was tolerated. I also wonder whether Julianne Hough was also terminated to make it look like it wasn't a race issue. And then both of them are out. She came out with a comment, oh no, everything was fine with me, because... Because she has something coming up. On NBC. On NBC. There you go. So, but yeah, I think y'all are going to be writing a check. And more than likely, if I'm Gabrielle Union,

I'm like, uh-uh, don't just have me a check to go away. Put me back on the show. I need both. No, no, no, no. I'm saying, but see, how this thing always works is, okay, fine, we'll cut a check for you to go away, put me back on the show. I need both. No, no, no, no. I'm saying, but see, how this thing always works is, okay, fine, we'll cut check for you to go away. No, no, no, no, no, no. Write a check and put me back on the show.

In fact, you were paying me $12. Why don't you go ahead and double that to $20 or $24 a year? We'll see what happens. All right, folks, got to go to a break. When we come back, we're going to talk about weed reparations in Illinois. I'll explain on Roland Martin Unfiltered. You want to check out Roland Martin Unfiltered?

YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. It's Roland Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roland Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roland S. Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's youtube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it.

All right, folks, as the marijuana momentum continues, the folks at MarijuanaStock.org have already reached more than half of their funding goal for the hemp CBD investment. That's right. If you want to take advantage of this great opportunity, you need to do it now because it won't last much longer. Now, if you don't know, I'm talking about the hemp plant, the good cousin to marijuana with a much higher concentration of CBD, which means hemp gives you all the medical benefits of marijuana without getting you high. Some of y'all are like, damn, I want the high part. Also, if you don't know, hemp farming is now legal in the United States, creating one of the largest commodities worldwide. It's an investment opportunity that you participate in, and the folks at 420 Real Estate

want to help you. Their business model is real simple. They buy land that supports hemp CBD grow operations and leases it to licensed high-paying tenants. That's right, they are hemp CBD landlords. You can get in on the action as Hemp continues to change the economic landscape for 20 real estate is allowing you to chase the American dream. Now, what you can do is you can invest in their crowdfunding campaign for as little as $200. That's right, $200 up to $10,000. Now, you got to do it now before the fund closes.

To invest, go to marijuana stock.org. That's marijuana stock.org. Get in the game and get in the game now. All right, speaking of marijuana, folks, I came across this story that I thought was really interesting where lawmakers in Evanston, Illinois, a small town outside of Chicago, have launched a $10 million reparations program for local African Americans, funded by profits from legalized pot. And when recreational marijuana sold from state-licensed dispensaries becomes legal in Illinois next year, the sales tax will be applied to housing and education incentives to address the lingering effects of slavery. Joining me right now

is Robin Rue Simmons, an alderman in Evanston, Illinois. So first of all, um, so let's do this here. So explain to me, how did this come about? Like whose idea was it? How did it happen? No way. So, um, all right. So here's what we did. So we have an issue. Let's do this here. We have an issue with your audio. So I want my audio folks to go ahead and get that straight. So we're not getting the feedback with your audio. Y'all let me know when it is fixed, please. And so, but we're going to go to my panel before I go back to the alderman here. Interesting idea. I would have to see exactly how it's laid out because I like the idea of reappropriating the funds for the low-income community. I don't know if you call it reparation in particular. And secondarily, I would like to see what are going to be the minority set-asides

for those state licenses because more so than giving me an apartment, give me one of those dispensaries. Give me access to that money. Well, in Chicago, when they were actually seeing who was going to get those, virtually no black people were in the front. Yeah, so that's my question.

And that's one of the issues. One of the issues that I've raised in this show is that, okay, who was most impacted by these marijuana laws? African Americans. And my deal needs to be, in fact, in some states, black caucuses are holding up

legalizing marijuana saying, no, no, no, we ain't voting on nothing unless we guarantee that black folks have, to your point, a set-aside there. Let me show you. So we'll say, the black caucus in Chicago at both the city level and the state level are fighting very hard to make sure that there is

availability and that black people are a part of the marijuana market. But it's after it passed. That's true. Your power is when, before it gets passed. That's the problem. See, the law is in New York State. The reason it is not passed in New York State, because the black in the Puerto Rican caucus said, this bill ain't moving until we get this thing resolved.

What happened in Maryland? They passed it, and then were complaining after the fact because only one black dispensary, and folks were saying, hey, what about us? You've got to use the power before. The strategy was wrong. But I will say that even looking at Evanston and what they're doing right now, I agree with Kelly here. I would not call that reparations, but it makes for a very strong media talking point.

But they are trying to give back to a certain extent. That's not even happening in Chicago and it's not happening a lot of other places. To Robert's point, the real buy in is going to be black people having these dispensaries, black people having a stake in this business. And I think that we're still a long way in many states and localities that are passing marijuana legislation to seeing that actually happen. So, yes, we're going to see a little bit of gimme's here there, but we're not really seeing what really matters. All right. Let me go to Alderman Simmons. So, first of all, explain what's the plan, how this thing come about? Well, it came about because our disparities were in line with the nation in terms of our income gap, achievement gap, health disparities. I serve and was born and raised in a neighborhood that has 13 year less life expectancy, $46,000 less household income. And we have done a lot in our community

in the way of equity and inclusion. We have a chief equity officer. We have other initiatives that have been very important but it had not been enough to bridge the gap. And as I was working towards a local reparation, the same time the Illinois state was passing the cannabis legislation and in that there was a commitment to social equity and the licensing. And I thought that I considered that a nudge to carry that same commitment into the tax revenue. I understand the barriers that are going to be before the minority community in accessing the licenses. I'm hoping that those barriers are reduced. But in the meantime, the revenue is coming, the tax is real. We approved a 3%

city tax and we've set aside 100% of those funds to $10 million to start a local reparation fund. I agree $10 million is not enough, but it certainly in our city of 74,000, moves us past ceremony and apology and starts to give us some money to repair some of the damages done. And so it will go into a fund, and then what happens? That is yet to be determined. We have an important community town hall meeting December 11th next week. NARC, the National African American Reparation Commission, will be coming in from D.C. along with Danny Glover for us to continue that conversation and decide on what initiatives that build wealth and strengthen community and improve the infrastructure in the historically

black and redline neighborhoods, we will approve for these funds and actually who will be approved. So we have more work ahead of us, but it certainly was an important step for us to set aside $10 million to start the fund. The fund is open and accepting contributions from foundations, institutions, families. We've already received at least a donation from an important organization in town. And my hope was that this would start us in the right direction past apology and ceremony. And so it passed 8 to one yes uh and uh when you talk about um using this tax but also ever since as to explain this ever since opting out of uh the state program explain what does that

mean i think out of the state program i I'm not sure. We have accepted the cannabis legislation. We have one existing medical dispensary that will operate as a recreational dispensary starting on January 1. And we have approved two additional licenses. So those licenses are yet to actually be approved, but we have identified room for two additional licenses. So we plan to operate three recreational dispensaries in our city, and we fully plan to work with the social equity component in terms of the licensing. So Everett actually is in.

Other Chicago suburbs have opted out. The city expects this to generate five to 700 grand annually, but it's going to cap at 10 million. Why the cap? Well, it's a $10 million. I'm sorry. It's a 10 year program right now. I agree. Maybe we should not have a cap, but we've been able to get it approved with a 10-year program and the cap on 10 million dollars, the first 10 million dollars of the revenue. There's a lot more room for improvement, I'm sure, and I'm hoping that we will continue to improve this program.

And we are very, very aware of the sensitivities of what is reparation. I don't know any dollar amount that can damage the repair to our community and our people, the crimes against humanity that we still deal with the impact today. But I am pleased with our city that we've made a very big step in the right direction. All right then, Alderman Simmons, we appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Kelly, I want to go to you. I think probably, so what's interesting about this, so it's being called reparations, but you're talking about housing and education, but I still don't know how it's going to work. And so I think to Amisha's point, putting reparations in it is getting the attention, but that's not necessarily what it is.

Yeah, I think that the word reparations, especially in this election cycle, is kind of like the code word for black people are going to get something or black people are going to be considered. Last election cycle was Black Lives Matter. The election cycle before it was probably criminal justice reform or something equivalent. So I'm not necessarily harping on the fact that it's being called reparations. My concern is marijuana notwithstanding the principle of the matter being you taxing the weed, the taxes or the proceeds going to us, right? And I caution how that's going to be structured,

mainly because I'm looking at what Maryland did. Again, not talking about marijuana, but I remember when Maryland finally passed legislation regarding casinos and the whole push regarding the casinos is like the we're going to get so much money and that money is going to go to the school system and we're going to rebuild Baltimore, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And what happened was it's not that that money didn't go there. What happened was that the money went, but the budget was such that it basically broke even. So the money that was there

before the casino money came in, that was being pulled out as the casino money was coming in, such that it was still basically the same amount of money being distributed to whatever the budget was being appropriated for that year. So what happens with that? So what happened is that, yes, the casinos, you know, were passed overwhelmingly. So because this was the promise made and technically speaking, the promise was kept. But the the effect was basically kind of like chilled. My secondary issue, though, with this one is that Evanston is one of the most highly property-rich and valued areas in Chicagoland in general. So for the argument to be that some of the black kids or minority kids in general aren't necessarily receiving the same, particularly in schools and housing, as some of the white kids,

I really want to see what those numbers are because, by and large, everyone in that area is doing a lot better off than people in all the surrounding areas. According to the city, the black-white gap financially is 46,000. And on top of that, I would ask more so, what are they pushing their electeds for? Because at the end of the day, if you want a certain appropriation for your schools, you want it for your housing,

this should have been done before you had the backing or trying to push for this marijuana legislation. You could have done this years ago. Where is the process of this coming about five, ten, even three years ago before this marijuana piece was ever actually. And what's being taken away in lieu of this coming in? And let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Good first step. I applaud them for doing so.

I applaud them for recognizing racial disparity. But do work the details out. I think that's an important point that we need to work out the details on how exactly it's work and what's going to be the criminal justice aspect of it. Are we going to be sponging people's criminal records for marijuana? Are we going to stop allowing people to, are we going to stop marijuana from being probable cause for searches by police officers? Those sorts of things I think should also be included in it. You know what, though? So let me speak to that.

So when... So 420 Real Estate is one of our sponsors. And when I met with them, we talked, they wanted to have these town halls around the country. And they wanted to make expungement a big part of the deal. And I told them, no.

I said, now let me explain. I said, there are groups that are already doing that. I said, let those groups keep doing that. Somebody else has to talk about the money. Let me explain i think part of the problem for and and i if anybody who saw my conversation with john o'brien will understand this is that one of the mistakes that i believe that we make as african-americans and i said this when i hosted the State of Black America panel in Indianapolis. And I asked them the question, if you had to name the top five issues facing

African Americans, money is not going to be in the top five. We're going to say mass incarceration, criminal justice. We're going to say police brutality. We're going to say health disparities. We're going to say education, but not money. And I said, somebody has to be focused on the money because, I mean, it's sort of like in the black community, whenever we're having these economic conversations, it's the NAACP, the Urban League, National Action Network, Rainbow Push. Not a single one of them have run a business. I said, are you going to talk about how you build wealth? Talk to folks who do that, not folks who don't.

If civil rights is your lane, that's your primary lane, focus on your primary lane. But the reality is that the money folks focus on this. So I would say within this initiative, these are city officials saying, how can we take proceeds from a tax and apply it to areas I've already mentioned, education and housing. Those two, that's their lane. Now, because the expungement part, the city can't do anything about that. That's a Cook County issue. That's a state issue. And so I just want, as we're moving forward, I want us to separate the two. I think we got to have clear and direct discussions. No, we hear

talk about money, the licenses, dispensaries, the contracts, the land. That's the money part. Over here, the expungement part, that's another part. And I think they're intertwined, but they still should be separated. If the expungement do what they do, and the money people do what they do. Because what happens is, what happens is the expungement part becomes the most important thing, and the money piece gets left aside. And then after we've done the expungement,

it's like, well, hell, how are we going to make some money? Well, that's part of the reason I think that you kind of have to tie them, because we usually get one bite at the apple. So if we're going to get something done for us. If we do the money part first and then the expungement part second, expungement will never happen. No, what I'm saying is they're operating in tandem.

What I'm saying is, but the people who do the money part ain't the folks who should be doing the expungement part because that's not what they do. That's the lawyers. That's the legal people. That's what they do. That's the lawyers. That's the legal people. That's what they do. The money people should be training and educating our people on the money part. Don't you know being a lawyer makes you good at everything? No, player. No, that ain't going to work.

That ain't going to work. And I'm telling you. I agree with you, though. I mean, what y'all got to say, I have seen this my entire career. People ask me to moderate a panel, and I'm like, ain't nobody on this panel with a business? Like, I love it when people have this. Let's talk about entrepreneurship. And then I'm like.

Who's qualified? Ain't no damn entrepreneur up here. That's like saying, let's talk about the yeah, let's talk about the law. Ain't nobody a lawyer. I'm just saying. I just think sometimes that we really have some backwards conversations. And so what I encourage 420 Real Estate and other people, I'm like, no, no, no. We got to have people whose sole job is educating our folk on the money piece, because that's what some folks don't know. And that's a huge mistake I think we make a lot of times where we don't elevate the money people.

I told Ron Buzz with the U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., I said, you should never allow a discussion or a panel discussion to be held when they talk about black wealth and black businesses and y'all sitting in the audience. I said, stand up in the middle of that sucker and say, I don't know how in the hell y'all picked them people here, but somebody who is on the black business side need to be on the panel talking about black business.

And that's just the one thing that just sort of just drives me crazy all the time we do that. So hopefully, so yeah, they got details to work out. And so, yeah, even though it's being called a reparations program that's i think that's the sexy title but that's not really what it is because frankly we really don't know what it is yet because we just know some money's gonna go into a fund that's gonna be kept at 10 million dollars over 10 years now they gotta figure out what they're gonna do with the fund what's a good start no absolutely no but but but it's how it goes back to, and I use them all the time in my speeches.

It goes back to how you use Demand Jackson, his grandfather taught him the three B's, the ballot, the book, and the buck. How you use your political power to deal with economic power and too often it's just being political power not on the economic piece and i and i keep i keep telling all these different people how you have to use that i want to talk to the maryland black caucus i said you should go back and say and say very simply if you if you get a state contract, you should go to the banks where you deposit state money and say, banks, you should be supplying lines of credit to any business that has already been approved for a state contract. I said, that ain't race-based. That's state-based. That is what Jackson did, which allowed black businesses who couldn't float their businesses for six months because the city paid 180 days to be able to still eat. But again, that's using political power. And too often, a lot of political people don't understand how those RFP processes work, how the bureaucracy works.

So we get excited about the elected official without realizing it's that bureaucrat who's writing the who's really responsible for writing the rules and things along those lines and that's just some one of the things that we got to be able to focus on all right folks got to go to a break uh we come back more roller mart unfiltered you don't get another crazy ass white person y'all really really ignorant i can't wait to show y'all. Back in a moment. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's youtube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. All right, folks. Today, the House back in session and more of the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump.

We got video of some of the witnesses. If so, roll it. We don't have video? Y'all really didn't get video? Oh, my God. Okay. Seriously? All right.

That's crazy. I'm going to play some video in a second. One thing that they really piss me off, these media people really piss me off. They have media people come on television and say, oh, she was dry, or this is really boring. Politico actually sent out a tweet, my girl Soledad blasted them.

They made some kind of point is, will anything today be clippable? So essentially, is anything going to be said today that can go viral? Amisha, this is the Constitution. This is abuse of power by a person sitting in the Oval Office. These media people are acting like this is love and hip-hop.

A hundred percent, Roland. I think that part of this is because, obviously, they are trying to... They're in a ratings battle, and at any point when somebody says obviously, they are trying to, they're in a ratings battle. And at any point when somebody says something that they can get to go viral or something that they can easily put in a snippet, turn it into a gif, make it a meme, this is going to be a great thing. And everybody's going to be talking about it for the next few days. When you have career professionals that are largely professorial, most of what they're going to give you from a legal standpoint, from an academic standpoint, is not going to be something that is Real Housewives of Atlanta level excitement.

But to your point, what was done today and what has been done over the course of this time has been painting the picture of what this president actually did, painting the picture from start to finish about why this is wrong, about the legality issues surrounding it, about how this affects our democracy. And I think that they laid that out well. To have media professionals who have argued time and time again that we should follow this because of the constitutional implications of this presidency to say basically, you know, they couldn't find anything or, you know, there wasn't anything clippable or there wasn't anything they could really tweet about. That's

a problem because the whole point wasn't to get you a viral moment. That's not the point of this impeachment process at all. That's not the point of these hearings. It's, again, so that the public would be able to see a lot of the conversation that has been happening behind the scenes, that has been happening behind closed doors, so that there would be a stronger understanding of the impeachable conduct that this president has done. That, to me, Robert, is what I think is a joke from when media people go ah this is just this is just so boring okay first of all I've seen a number of congressional hearings they're not exciting okay it's a bunch of people sitting behind microphones there's a table in front, a witness is sitting there,

typically reading testimony, asking questions. And really what you're watching is the grandstanding of members of Congress. Okay. But this is not exciting. It's actually sobering when you talk about going through the process of impeaching a president when it has only happened three times in the history of the country well let's understand this is why Trump wins this is why Trump is winning that's why Trump will win Trump has mastered the media Trump understands the impeachment is a hybrid process it's a hybrid process between the legal and the political so you have the legal aspects of it in which case he's dead to rights. So this is going to a magistrate judge somewhere.

You didn't have to worry about public opinion. Then, yeah, this would be over by Friday afternoon. But the fact that this is dependent upon public officials, this is dependent upon public opinion, Trump, if you notice, his defenders are not defending the legal aspects of it. They're not arguing that he didn't make the phone call. They're not arguing he did not request the assistance from Zelensky. They're're not arguing that he didn't make the phone call. They're not arguing he did not request the assistance from Zelensky. They're not even arguing that he didn't break the law.

They're saying, but does it matter? And the best way to fight that is to throw enough spaghetti up, throw out enough chaff, throw out enough flack that people can't concentrate on the actual issue and you wait for the holiday season to hit, people stop paying attention to it, and then you can move on to the next subject

and say this is all part of the witch hunt, all part of the hoax. This is what Trump does so well and Democrats haven't figured out how to combat it yet. But the thing here, Kelly, is one, if you fall for the okey-doke where you chase that rabbit down that hole, that's exactly what happens Democrats which and I think I think people are also making a mistake

here and people say oh this this is just if this is just completely helping Trump I disagree because what you also have to do is continuously say case after case after case and all of a sudden, using folks' own words. You got Mick Mulvaney who went to the microphone, who came, yeah, I was a quid pro quo. Oh, no, no, I didn't really mean that. No, no, no, we know exactly what you said. He said, everybody does it.

Right, when you see what's happening now with the folks who were indicted, who were associates of Rudy Giuliani, and now saying we have tapes things we're gonna we're gonna turn over as well uh that thing begins to build the problem I have is when you have the gatekeepers who then say before before there's a single testimony this is boring okay I'm being put to sleep okay whatever so in essence they are amplifying the exact thing that Trump wants them to say. And not only are they amplifying it, frankly, they're just not doing their job,

not nearly as effectively as they could be. Because if you're talking about a soundbite or something that's not exciting, well, one, exciting is relative. Because when I was watching the hearings, I wasn't necessarily, you know, wowed, but I was fascinated because this was the first time in the two months that they've been doing these hearings and testimony and all these things that we actually have a map as to exactly why we are in this process right now. You have four professors who who by the way the the Republican witness for this committee I can't remember his name but he's from Jonathan Turley Charlie nobody him included are Trump supporters and yet all of them were there whether they were on one side of the aisle or not, to defend the Constitution.

And why this inquiry was in place. They broke it down. But, Kelly, let's just be clear. On the Republican side, when Trump said, I can kill somebody on Fifth Avenue and my supporters won't care, the Republican Party is essentially saying, you're absolutely right. There is nothing

that this man... Hold on, I want to carry this one. There's nothing this man has done. When they finally said, okay, you know what? That's enough. The Republican, entire Republican Congress are afraid of a tweet. They are afraid of being trolled by Trump because they know that their constituents are following Trump and not, you know, the the the people who they voted. You know what? I disagree. I disagree. I just really believe I think that they are so weak.

I think they're so weak. As long as they don't tweet about me. And so for them to say things privately, and then to go out there and say the opposite. Well, they don't want anything in the public to, you know, put them

in the back. It's laughable, but it's because they want to be reelected. But this is the party that has tried to consistently stake itself as the constitutionalist. Right. Hardcore. Law and order, morals, values, principles, the founding fathers, the original intent of the...

All of it flies out the window with the presidency. Let me get nerdy for a second. That was actually the most interesting thing from the hearing today. Yes, thank you. Jonathan Turley's testimony where most Republicans consider Scalia to be the gold standard of judges, of Supreme Court jurists. And Scalia was always an original intentist. He knew that we need to go back to what the founders believed in when they wrote the Constitution. Turley argued the exact opposite today, saying that we should take a 2019 interpretation of what bribery is, basically saying, well, the president can do a little bit of bribery.

He can do some bribery, but he won't bribery. But here's what was funny. Here's what was funny. I'm going to bring up Congresswoman Karen Bass right now in California, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congresswoman, it was so hilarious to sit there and watch Jonathan Turley say, oh, no, no, no. The president, the president hasn't committed, you know, a crime. This is the same dude who actually argued this. This is the same guy who argued this when Bill Clinton was going through impeachment hearings.

Y'all go to my iPad. No matter how you feel about President Clinton, and I don't dislike President Clinton, I voted for President Clinton. But no matter how you feel about President Clinton, no matter how you feel about the independent council, by his own conduct, he has deprived himself of the perceived legitimacy to govern you need both political and legal legitimacy to govern this nation because the president must be able to demand an absolute sacrifice from the public at a moment's notice and when there's a question of

legitimacy it has to be resolved in a way that it doesn't divide what Franklin referred to as irregular actions. To me, Congressman Karen Bass shows how laughable the Republicans who are defending Trump, they literally are saying the opposite of what they said when Bill Clinton was going through the same thing. Absolutely. I mean, you know, I thought and I was surprised, frankly, that the witness that they chose was so weak. It was pretty amazing. I thought our witnesses were very strong. I thought Professor Kaplan was amazing. She didn't take any crap from the Republicans. She pushed back and made her stand very, very strong. So I just don't at this point understand what leg they have to stand on.

And Michael Gerhardt, you talked about one of those constitutional law professors. This is what he said. And I think it was so on point because it is what many of us have been saying is that you cannot let a thug keep being a thug and somehow think he's going to turn into Prince Charming. This is what he had to say. If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on behalf of the next election and of course his obstruction of Congress. The fact that we can easily transpose the articles of impeachment against President Nixon

onto the actions of this president speaks volumes. And that does not even include the most serious national security concerns and election interference concerns at the heart of this president's misconduct. No misconduct is more antithetical to our democracy. And nothing injures the American people more than a president who uses his power to weaken their authority under the Constitution as well as the authority of the Constitution itself. May I read one more sentence? I'm sorry. The witness may have another sentence or two. Thank you.

If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning. And along with that, our Constitution's carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil. And therefore, I stand with the Constitution and I stand with the framers who are committed to ensure that no one is above the law. And that is the fundamental issue, Congresswoman Bass. Donald Trump has actually said, I can do whatever I want. Exactly, because he has never understood the office that he was elected to. And to me, the thing that is so serious and so urgent about what we face right now is that this guy, we know that he interfered in the last election. But we have got to do everything we can to protect the

next election. You know how we're all concerned about voter suppression? We're concerned about whether the Russians are going to intervene? Well, this guy has essentially attempted to intervene through using the threat to another country who was literally is literally at war we're gonna withhold military aid from them until he investigates my opponent so our next election is the election that's under threat and that creates the urgency and the need to impeach him as fast as possible now we need to have a thorough process we need to have a transparent process it needs to be completely inclusive as it was. You saw the Republicans, they really didn't have a leg to stand on, which is why what they attempted to talk about was process. And you know very well,

Roland, it doesn't matter what we do, they still object. So they didn't like the depositions. They wanted it to be open. They wanted us to take a vote. They wanted the transcripts. They've gotten all of that. And so they continue to argue process because they have no content. Congresswoman Karen Bass, we appreciate it. We'll be watching these hearings further. And unlike some of the folks in the media, I don't find them boring than those of us who actually cared about the government classes when we were in school, unlike some other folks. Thank you.

I appreciate it. Thanks a bunch. One of the folks who also has gotten a lot of attention is Professor Pamela Carlin. I do want to play a bit for you of what she had to say. I thought probably out of all of them, she probably was the strongest.

Also what jumped out again, for those of you who didn't pay attention, this woman who said, I've represented this committee under a Republican chair and a Democratic chair. She talked about Senator Brenner from Wisconsin, who was sitting there on the day. She also represented the committee when the late Congressman John Conyers was the chair of this committee. This, of course, is Professor Pamela Carlin in today's hearing. As President John Kennedy declared, the right to vote in a free American election is the most powerful and precious right in the world. But our elections become less free when they are distorted by foreign interference.

What happened in 2016 was bad enough. There is widespread agreement that Russian operatives intervene to manipulate our political process. But that distortion is magnified if a sitting president abuses the powers of his office actually to invite foreign intervention. To see why, imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that's prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster

aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said I would like to do you I would like you to do us a favor. I'll meet with you and I'll send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal. Wouldn't you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the national interest, and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? I believe that that evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on that scale here. It shows a president who delayed meeting a foreign leader and providing assistance that Congress and his own advisers agreed serves our national interest in promoting democracy and in limiting Russian aggression. Saying Russia if

you're listening. You know a president who cared about the Constitution would say Russia if you're listening butt out of our elections. And it shows a president who did this to strong-arm a foreign leader into smearing one of the president's opponents in our ongoing election season. That's not politics as usual. At least not in the United States or not in any mature democracy. It is instead a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power.

Put simply, a president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand it and not welcome it. If we are to keep faith with our Constitution and with our republic, President Trump must be held to account. Thank you. Here's the issue, Robert, that is very simple. If the Democrats do nothing, Donald Trump, well, I can keep doing whatever the hell I want.

So the question then has to be, so what the hell do you do? Because he, he does, there are no boundaries for Donald Trump. There's no bottom. It's not like, okay, you know what? I think we've crossed the line. No, it doesn't exist for him. He believes in his mind because he has actually said it. They've told me I can do whatever I want to do. I can't be criminally investigated. I can't be indicted. You can't interview me. Congress, we're going to ignore every subpoena you bring. I'm going to give blanket immunity to people who he tried to give immunity to Corey Lewandowski, who did not even work in the administration. So if he is clearly saying,

even when Congress needs to investigate, he goes, now, forget that. He believes Congress has no authority to question anything that I do. The thing about Trump that you have to remember is he is a habitual line stepper. And liar. So wherever you lay the line at,

he's going to push it further, and Democrats have not figured out how to push back against that. That even the entire impeachment process, they haven't developed an elevator pitch. There's not a 10-second pitch that you can tell your barber where he understands exactly

what this impeachment process is about. No, actually, they have. But that's what Trump is depending on. But they have done that. But that's why we haven't seen public opinion move. Public opinion has gone down for impeachment since the process has begun. See, here's why I think

where public opinion is. The reality is, when they survey people, they're surveying Democrats and Republicans. The reality is Republicans are operating in lockstep with Donald Trump. That's where they are. Their deal is, sorry, not going there. But That's where they are. Their deal is sorry, not going

there. But let's also be mindful. This is the fourth time in history in all four times no president was convicted. Johnson was impeached. And that's also part of the other issue here, Misha.

Let's just cut to the chase. It's a lot of dumbass Americans. Okay? No, because when we think, when we hear impeachment, people think, oh, he's going to get impeached and thrown out. No. Impeachment happens in the House. That's essentially an indictment. The trial happens in the Senate. That's the real deal.

So part of the deal here is language. Can Donald Trump be impeached? Yes. Johnson was impeached. Bill Clinton was impeached. Nixon resigned before he got impeached. But will they get convicted and removed? That's the issue.

And no president, the two times it happened before, were actually removed. Johnson was saved by one vote. I think that is a massive part of people not understanding how the impeachment process works, which I would say is a failure on our education system in general. But the other part of it, I would argue, is that in this case, this is a national security and international affairs issue. Yes, it goes back to the fidelity of our elections, but you holding a basic carrot for Ukraine and agreeing that you're going to withhold funds to

them when they're actively at war and people are dying every day. I think that for the American people in a lot of these other previous impeachment inquiries and conversations, it was easier to wrap your head around. It was easy for people to wrap their head around Bill Clinton and a salacious sex tale. It is a lot more difficult for people to understand the breadth and why this is important when it comes to the constitutionality and that function. In addition to the fact that we have a president who literally was arguing to withhold funds to get what he wanted to lead into an investigation, not actually even have an investigation happen, but to have President Zelensky of the Ukraine step on a podium and announce to CNN that he was going to have Biden investigated, by and large, just because he wanted to shrink his gains in the polls, period.

And I think that the American public has to understand that. Does that go through the entirety of the impeachment hearings? Will people follow them? I have no, I don't think that Americans are going to watch every single bit of these impeachments. I don't think anybody believes that. But I do hope that there is an understanding of the longevity and the brevity of what this president has done. And that if he gets away with it, there is no stopping him. Kelly, and I will say this here, and this is also what I think is at play here, and that is when you talk about, so let's just be clear.

So when the framers wrote this, they weren't talking about the four of us. Okay. They were talking about white people. Okay, so we weren't even in the conversation. White men specifically. We were not in the conversation. My hands are only white men.

Right. But this is what I believe the framers thought. I believe they thought that, first of all, you look at how the House and the Senate were constructed. The House was called the People's Chamber. Of course, and the Senate was written to be the more esteemed... Lords. ...body that actually had a brain and the crazy people in the house. That's pretty much how they wrote it. What I don't believe the expectation was,

was that you would have individuals in one party who would truly put party over country. I believe that you had a situation where you had a belief that somebody would say, forget Democrat, Republican, whatever the parties were. You should be acting any way the way a president should act. What you have here, Kelly, are Republicans who are defending lies, who are defending stuff that they know it's false, who are sitting in this hearing waving, but the transcript, when it's not even a transcript.

You're hearing people say, we don't have all the facts. And you got a guy who said to the chief of staff, you ain't testifying. Bo, you ain't testifying. Said to Sondland, you ain't testifying. Praised him, but then when he did testify, said, I ain't know who the hell he is.

And so, you've all of these going, I don't think they expected folks to truly say, um, yeah, we're just going to ignore all of that. Damn the country, damn facts, damn principles, damn values, damn morals, and we're just going gonna protect the thug at all costs.

I also don't think that they anticipated the leader of the country disregarding the branches of government. So... Completely disregard. Completely disregard. So the whole intent of the Constitution even coming into existence was to avoid a monarchy. They split up the power so that everything could be even

and respected. That is key. Because it can't be separated unless it's respected. So they expected the president to respect the other two branches of government. They expected the legislature to respect the other two branches of government and so on and so forth. What's happening right now is that, frankly,

nobody is respecting anybody. You have Republicans not even respecting the president, just in lockstep with him for fear of not being reelected by the base. You have Democrats, who, like Robert was saying earlier, don't have a pitch in lockstep with him for fear of not being reelected by the base you have democrats who like robert was saying earlier don't have a pitch regarding this impeachment process that could actually garner the american public together and actually give them an understanding as to not only

why this is important but why they should support it robert robert i would love to see the next democratic president say, y'all kiss my ass. I'm going to do what Trump did. I just want to play back all these comments. But people are playing back the comments from 1998 of Democrats saying the exact opposite thing during that impeachment hearing.

That's all moral relativism when it comes down to it. People to this day think Bill Clinton was impeached because he got oral sets in the White House. No. He did not. He lied. Because he lied to Congress. People to this day think Bill Clinton was impeached because he got oral sets in the White House. No. He did not. He lied. Because he lied to Congress. He committed a criminal act.

The Constitution literally says high crimes or misdemeanors. They are setting a range. Hamilton leads that out of Federalist 65. As in, nobody is above the law in any way,

shape, or form. And it is a political process. Yes. So all this criminal stuff. It's always a political process. But hold on. When they say, now we keep hearing about, is this an impeachable offense?

That's a very dumb argument that everybody's making because people are dumb. They have to understand, when they say high crimes or misdemeanors, they're setting a range. If the president steals a candy bar, that's a misdemeanor offense. That is an impeachable offense. They are letting the president of the United States know, regardless of your position, there is absolutely no law that you are above. So when you have this argument about whether or not it's an impeachable offense,

everything is an impeachable offense, if it's criminal at all. They allowed Congress to determine what the offense is. So when you hear Republicans say, there's nothing criminal here, the Constitution don't say a damn thing about criminal. But hold on.

Even on that point, 52 U.S.C. 30121, such an A2, is illegal to solicit a foreign national for a thing of value. Thank you. That is illegal. He, when the president gets on stage and says, Russia, if you're listening, please find Hillary's email. That is a solicitation. That's a solicitation. That's all he needs. No, no, no. Robert, they said he was email. That is a solicitation. That's all he needs.

They said he was joking. When he says Ukraine and China they should launch a major investigation into Biden. That is a solicitation of a foreign national. But they said he was joking. Solicitation does not matter about intent. If you pull up to a hooker

right now and say I'm soliciting you I was joking my bad. Just because you didn't get done? The solicitation itself is what is the criminal offense. That to me, this is just so crazy. We're going to keep following

it. We'll keep talking about it as well. I do got to talk about this, y'all. During the Q&A, following the performance of this dumbass Broadway slave play, a white woman was not happy. She started screaming at Jeremy Harris, the black gay playwright, and told him she is tired of the narrative that white people are racist. Lord.

Press play. I don't want to hear that white people are the fucking play on. Because you're talking about your boss. I hear that white people are the fucking play on drugs. No, I'm not. I'm just right now. I don't care. I don't care. This is privately charged. Rape, false arrest, fucking having children taken away, and being told that as a single woman I'm not good enough to fucking rape them. How the fuck am I not a fucking marginalized member of this goddamn society?

We haven't said you are. I've never once said that you as a white woman are not a marginalized person. If you heard that in my play, I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps I can read it or see it again. I think the confidence compared to every other character and a whole bunch of stuff about how white people don't... Of course, the play is about race, sex, power, relations, trauma, and interracial relationships.

It follows three interracial couples undergoing antebellum sexual performance therapy because the black partners no longer feel sexual attraction to their white partners. One, it's a dumbass play I'll never go see. The whole concept of this play is problematic in and of itself. When I was reading just basically Come on, master.

On its face, it's a problem. Black people should have a problem with it as well. But the fact that this woman in the audience internalized so much, started talking about her own personal experience, how her kids got taken away, that and other thing. She clearly went into that play with some issues. She need a cigarette.

I blame y'all liberal people. She need a cigarette or she need a blunt? Go ahead, Robert. I blame y'all liberal people because y'all have convinced these other people that they get to be part of our club. Since y'all started doing this whole people of color, minorities, marginalized people. No, no, nice try.

All that stuff, that's y'all. That's what you're wrong. That ain't liberal. That ain't liberal. That's white. No, no, let me be real clear. We didn't do that. Because white conservatives, what happened to the whole issue of diversity? Oh, no.

Diversity of thought. Diversity of where you're part of the country you're from. Because they essentially just want to add white people. White conservatives play the game. So that ain't liberal or conservative. That's white. I bet you she voted for Hillary. But I'm telling you, a white conservative man will stand up in a company and say,

well, do we have diversity of thought? I think we need to have. That was the crap the white boys at Google said. Well, you know, we need to have diversity of thought at Google. The views of white conservatives. Man, Kelly gone. There's not much to say. Okay. We'll go to the next story then. It's really, it's dumb. Man, Kelly gone. There's not much to say. Okay, we're going to the next story then.

This is really, it's dumb. No, but seriously, it's dumb. But don't, Kelly, Kelly, let me help you out. You can't, Kelly, rule of television, don't ever say on TV, ain't nothing else left to say. There isn't though. That means you about to get skipped. You can't say there's nothing else left to say

and then you want to keep talking. What you going to do talking What you gonna do? It's dumb Alright y'all, y'all know what time it is No charcoal grills are allowed I'm white I got you Illegally selling water without permit

On my property Hey! I'm uncomfortable. I can't even look at it, y'all. This bullshit happened in New York. 240 East 4th Street. I'm not- In Manhattan.

It's in the corner of 4th and B. And he will not leave the premises. He won't tell me who he's here for. And he's holding the door in- I'm on the second floor, my- It's on the second floor. Then tell me who it is. No.

Pardon me? Why should I tell you? Who are you? 240 East 4th Street. I'm going to visit my aunt. Yes, thank you. In Manhattan, yeah, the corner of Avenue B. All he has to do is tell me who his aunt is.

No, no, I do not. You're no one. No, I live here, sir. I do not have to tell you anything. She lives on the second floor? Yes. I doubt it. Okay.

I doubt it. Step back, sir. He's right on the second floor. Step back. No. I know everyone in the building, sir. Step back. Okay.

There's been a lot of theft. No, I'm not a thief. Pardon me? I haven't done anything. I'm not really sure. And he won't tell me what apartments he is. There's been thieves in this. I'm not really sure. And he won't tell me what apartments he in. There's been thieves in this. I'm not a thief.

He's wearing a hat with a PSPN hat on. He's wearing houses. And with my two young kids. He's wearing these with his two young kids. Okay, Kelly. Let's start here. He probably was filming. Remind y'all again.

Shoot this way so we can feel the whole screen. Okay. All right. So he probably was shooting in his left hand like this here. This is available to do this. Heifer move. I'm just... That does not improve the situation.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Then she would have yelled assault. Again, you ain't stopping me because your ass playing a bookman from good times where you think you're the apartment building

of fake, you know, top flight security, and I'm trying to go see my aunt with my kids. I ain't stopping for you. You stop me, who the hell are you talking to? I mean, literally, you don't even exist. We got these other videos where these white folks are stopping folks. I'm going to tell you, girl, if anybody white stop me,

I'm just letting y'all know there's not going to be an 11 minute video of us conversing that was 11 minutes? no no no that was the short one but the one we did the other day where the white woman the man was throwing trash out yeah oh that was long that went 11 minutes?

that went 10 minutes and 48 seconds too long I just don't understand why people think it's minutes? Yeah, no. That went 10 minutes and 48 seconds too long. I just don't understand why people think it's expensive to mind your business. It is so free. It is free to mind your business. Like, I don't understand why

that whole interaction even had to take place. You're not the owner of the building. You don't know every single person in the building. Obviously, you don't know this man's aunt. You know, he's with his children. I can only imagine how traumatized these children are. You know, I don't know how old or young they are, but like he's with his family to see another family member that's not related to this woman, obviously.

Why don't you just leave people alone? Robert, if somebody illegally detained me, can I have their ass arrested? You actually can indeed. Again, let's understand. He did the right thing by filming, but if you are on any network besides Sprint where you can make a phone call

while also doing a video, he should have also called the police on her. Okay, first of all, first of all, stop that. How you just gonna throw some shade at Sprint? Hey, look. I mean, how you just gonna... You ask them. How you just gonna throw some...

That's calling a thing a thing? You just ask Sprint about it. But look... All right, go ahead. He should have called the police also on her because at that point where she's now detained an unknown black man for a period of time, thinking that she's going to play Robocop to stop him, you don't know what this woman is capable of. Bruh.

She could have injured him. She could have injured the children. She could have had pepper spray. Who knows what? So he should have also called the police officer and charged her falsely detaining him. Do y'all have a video of the white woman who physically kept the sister from leaving her own building?

Let me know if y'all got it. We're gonna run tomorrow. But I'm talking about this woman physically, the sister's like, have a move. Police work for both of us. We all pay taxes. So you have just every right that she has to call the cops on you, you have the right to call the cops on her.

I made sure the thing is, when Cleo was here, you do not see an abundance of videos of black folks just detaining white folks left and right. Ever. And I'm like, at the end of the day, if you're not somebody who literally is employed by that building, you know, like when you have the person who sits at the booth, buzzes people in, whatever, that person has the right to ask you a question. Right. As a regular resident who is just standing there blocking the door, absolutely not. That man didn't have to tell her a darn thing. He has his two small kids with him. There's absolutely no reason why she thought he was going to be a threat.

She saw a black man and she decided she was going to call the cops. At the end of the day, we see this happen way too often where someone makes up into their head that this is some type of threat just because of the color of your skin. And now all of a sudden they try to make this into a criminal situation. He had a lot more calm than I would have had in that situation. But they find these people in like places that have a lot of black people there. It's not like you are flying some milk where it's just unheard of. How do you know everybody in the building? That's what I'm saying.

I don't know everybody. I live in apartment complexes. I ain't know everybody on the floor. I don't know who my neighbor is. Also, she definitely voted for Hillary too. Y'all liberal friends. Those of y'all white women, y'all be all in the marches,

wolfing, wearing the little hats, all that stuff. I did not wear that hat. Those of y'all friends. How you not to vote for Hillary? We find out, I bet you. I'll put money on it. First of all, it ain't hard. It's 50-50, Robert. I'm just saying. Or she could have voted for Jill Stein, which means she voted for Trump. She could be a Jill Stein voter, but I'm putting my money on Hillary. She looks like the type, like the activist mom type. I'm putting my money on Trump because here's the reality.

Since Trump got in the Oval Office, we have seen a rapid increase of crazy-ass white people doing stupid stuff like this here. I ain't quite see these videos popping up with regularity when Obama was in the office. We didn't have camera phones back then. That was 08. What? Y'all have money. I didn't have no these videos popping up with regularity when Obama was in office. We didn't have camera phones back then. That was 08.

And what? What? Y'all have money. I didn't have no camera phone in 08. Yeah, your ass probably had the, yeah, you probably just got rid of your flip phone. All right, y'all. A new statue of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks

was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama on a Sunday marking the 64th anniversary of her refusal to give up her seat on a public bus to a white man. The first black mayor in Montgomery's history, Stephen Reed, who recently was sworn in, as well as tri-flat Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, they both pulled back a cloth. No, it wasn't Kay Ivey's Klan hood. They pulled back a cloth to unveil the statue before a crowd of about 400 folks. Also in attendance was Mary Louise Smith, a plaintiff in the court case

that determined segregation on Montgomery buses was unconstitutional. And so, and wow, a statue that actually looks like Rosa Parks. You know, I've seen some King statues, and I'm like, who the hell is that? And so, thank goodness we have that statue. And so, next time I go to Montgomery, I'll be sure to drop by. I always make it a point when I go to cities to go see the black monuments. So when y'all go through Union Station, who stops at the A. Philip Randolph statue? Not now one of y'all. Your fake Negroes. Y'all didn't realize it was there, huh? I'm going to be honest, I didn't. I had no idea. Okay, let me help

your fake Negroes out. So across from Starbucks, first be honest, I didn't. I had no idea. OK, let me help you fake Negroes out. So across from Starbucks, first of all, I used to be right next to Starbucks. So right across from Starbucks, you will see the statue of A. Philip Randolph. Of course, the fact. Hold up. Hold up one second. Hold up one second.

Hold up one second. So your ass know the statue, but you didn't know who the hell A. Philip Randolph was. I never looked at the statue. I'm always just zipping and running out of Union Station. I never took the time to look at the statue. You do know who A. Philip Randolph is. Oh, yes, I know who he is.

I didn't know, like, I see that I'm not looking. It was a big-ass tattoo of a black man. It never caused you to say, hmm, I wonder who is this? No, because I have somewhere to go. I'm not just standing in Union Station. I'm sorry. You ain't got to even stand in Union Station. You could walk by and look at the big-ass letters and say, oh, A. Philip Randolph's tattoo.

That's not how my mind works. I have some place to be. I'm going to that place. So when you're going through the Atlanta airport, any one of y'all, do y'all stop at the placard there that has the bronze of Amanda Jackson on the wall? I've seen it, yeah. Oh, so y'all, at least y'all,

y'all acknowledge that one. I mean, it's Atlanta, so I expect it. No, I'm just checking. Okay. Did y'all ever go through the Austin airport? There's a bronze statue there of Barbara Jordan. I think you should give us a scavenger hunt. That would be cool.

Come on, Rollie. Give us like 20 black monuments around the country. I am about... First of all, when you go to Birmingham outside the Civil Rights Institute, there's a Fred Shuttlesworth

statue there. Okay. I've never been there. Okay, all right. Y'all been to Ole Miss where there's a James Meredith? I ain't going nowhere near Ole Miss.

They got a rebel flag flying, so I'm good. Aren't you from Backwoods, Georgia? Yes, but look. I know to Jackson. I know a Mississippi edge. If y'all go to Shreveport, Louisiana,

the Southern University, they have an African art museum there. They've got a Harriet Tubman monument there. Nope. Do you Negroes even have passports? Yes. That's what's funny. I just haven't been to these places yet.

First of all, I'm talking about the 48 connected states. Yes! That's what's funny. I mean, first of all, I'm talking about the 48 connected states. I know. I need y'all to support Roller Martin and the Filter. Roller Martin and the Filter.com and general Bring the Funk fan club. I'm going to need y'all to give

because I'm going to have to pay to bring in some new panelists. I'm going to have to go find some real black people. Alright then, so please go to Roller Martin real black people. Okay. All right, then. Please go to rollerbar.filter.com and join our Bring the Funk fan club. Support what we do. Also, shout out to all my brothers of

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated today. The 113th anniversary A5A founded December 4th, 1906 on the campus of Cornell University. First as a study group and then, of course course became fraternity. That's for all you other fraternities where scholarship ain't really at the top of y'all list.

Y'all know who I'm talking about. Y'all know all the rest of y'all. And so I also called today a bow down day for all you Kappas, Omegas, Sigmas, and our oldest. Because remember, who's your daddy? Alpha. Just wanted to let y'all know that. Alright, folks. I gotta go. I'll see y'all tomorrow. And the next time Kelly,

Robert, and Amisha come back, trust me, their black cards may be reinstated. Because today was a struggle black day. Because of a statue? Okay, a couple statues. It of a statue? Okay, a couple statues. It's a black man found at

the first black labor. I got you. I got it. Can you at least just acknowledge this black man? I never did. I never said that he didn't exist. I just don't pay attention to the statue. The next time you walk past a damn statue

and it almost look black, at least look at it. I will be sure to take a selfie the next time I'm in Union Station just for you. Damn! With my pumpkin spice latte. Right, A. Fila Randolph put all that work in for her ass of a pumpkin slice latte. Well, caramel brulee. Because it's winter now.

You know what? I can't even end on holla. Holla! We asked parents who adopted teens to share their journey. We just kind of knew from the beginning that we were family. They showcased a sense of love that I never had before. I mean, he's not only my parent, like, he's like my best friend. At the end of the day, it's all been worth it. I wouldn't change a thing about our lives. Learn about adopting a teen from foster care.

Visit AdoptUSKids.org to learn more. Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ad Council. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no.

This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.