#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 1.29 Cop who killed cuffed man charged; Dr. Omalu responds to critics; Grammy's snub Black media

Episode Date: February 1, 2020

1.29.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Prince George's County cop who killed cuffed man charged with murder; Dr. Bennet Omalu responds to claims he didn't discover CTE; Trump admin makes loan discrimination easier; Another man has died in a Mississippi prison; Virginia is officially the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment; Grammy's snub Black media on the red carpet; We remember the life of Hall of Fame football player, Chris Doleman #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: Are you looking to enhance your leadership or that of your team in 2020? Join Dr. Jacquie Hood Martin as she engages others to think like a leader. Register and start the online course today! www.live2lead.com/Leesburg #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: This is a CALL TO ACTION! On Monday February 3rd and Tuesday February 4th join the CBC for the 2020 National Black Leadership Summit. This call to action was established to mobilize African American participation in the 2020 census, as well as advocate for voting rights and the CBC's legislative agenda. For more info visit http://ow.ly/PpnW50y3EHh Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. for shooting a black man handcuffed in his police car. Now, the Prince Edward County's state's attorney is looking into two other shootings involving that police officer. We'll talk with the state's attorney right here in Roland Martin Unfiltered. Exclusive interview with Dr. Bennett Amalo. Of course, he is the doctor many widely credit with discovering CTE, but the Washington Post

printed a long article saying he did with discovering CTE. But the Washington Post printed a long article saying he did not discover CTE and pretty much calls him a salesman. He's going to respond to their story right here. The Trump administration has plans to make it easier for banks to discriminate against black people who want loans. I thought he was doing so much for black people.

Hmm. Another man has died in a Mississippi prison, bringing the count up to 13 this year. Also, Virginia is officially the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, clearing the way for court battles over whether the measure can be added to the United States Constitution.

And why do stars keep passing up black media on the red carpet at award shows? I'm going to show you a video. Plus, we remember the life of Hall of Famer football player Chris Dolman. Folks, it's time to bring the funk on Roller Mark on the Filter. Let's go. He's right on time and it's rolling Best believe he's knowing Putting it down from sports to news to politics With entertainment just for kicks

He's rolling It's on go-go-go-yo It's rolling Martin Rolling with rolling now He's funky, he's yeah, yeah, yeah. Rolling with rolling now. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. He's broke, he's fresh, he's real the best. You know he's rolling, Martel. Now.

Martel. All right, folks. A Prince George's County officer charged with murder after killing a handcuffed man. He is ordered to heal without bond today by a district court judge who ruled the officer is a danger to the community. Corporal Michael A. Owen Jr. was arrested Tuesday night, less than 24 hours after he repeatedly shot William Green of Southeast Washington, who was handcuffed inside the police cruiser. Here's a news conference held today by Prince George's County Police Chief Hank Stawinski. Our community knows that when I have the facts, you will have the facts. For the past almost 24 hours, I have remained in constant consultation with members of our Special Investigations Response Team,

our Criminal Investigations Division, our Forensic Sciences Division, and our Use of Force Experts. This has been a thorough and exhaustive review of all form and manner of evidence available to us, as well as a review of the preliminary findings of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. And here are the facts. I am unable to come to our community this evening and provide you with a reasonable explanation for the events that occurred last night. I am unable to come to our community this evening and offer you a reasonable explanation for the events that occurred last night. I have concluded that what happened last night

is a crime. And as a result, I have directed our special investigations response team to charge Corporal Michael Owen with second-degree murder, manslaughter, and associated weapons charges in the death of William Green. Joining me right now is Prince of Georgia County State's Attorney, Aisha Braveboy.

Glad to have you on Roller Martin Unfiltered. Thank you so much for having me back. GENERALLY RIGHT NOW IS PRINCE, GEORGIA COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY, AISHA BRAVEBOY. GLAD TO HAVE YOU ON ROLLERMARK UNFILTERED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME BACK. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE ALSO LOOKING INTO TWO OTHER SHOOTINGS OF THIS POLICE OFFICER? ACTUALLY, THERE IS A REQUEST BY THE FAMILY WHO IS THE NEXT OF KEN IN ONE OTHER INCIDENT INVOLVING THE SAME OFFICER. is a request by the family who's the next of kin in one other incident involving the same officer. They've requested that we review the evidence in that case and we will be taking a look at that evidence.

That was from 2011, so of course that predates my tenure as the state's attorney. But we try to be responsive to the public, and we believe that it's important that the families understand, you know, all of the facts that the office was presented with at that time. Again, I was not, you know, the state's attorney at the time, but it is my office and I'm responsible for, you know, providing as much information as I can to the family. The decision to arrest the officer and the chief said it was his call. What role did your office play in any of this? Well, let me just say this, and you know, as with any case, and I wanted to say this

from the outset, just because this case is in the very early stages of the investigation, Officer Owen is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. So the police did make a decision to charge as they do in both cases involving criminal action. They make initial charging decisions and then we review those charges. We screen the case. In this case, because there are felony charges, as with any felony case, we will use our grand jury process to interview witnesses, collect any additional evidence, and make final charging decisions before we move forward. Folks, this is a photo here, a booking photo of Corporal Owen as he appeared today in court via video.

Attorney Brave Boy, when we look at this case, first of all, a lot of people have been very shocked at how quickly this officer was charged. It is very rare to actually see that. And as you said, now it goes through the next step process. So now he was charged by the police officers, which now means that moving forward, you will now take this to a grand jury to seek an indictment, correct? Well, what we do is we collect additional evidence, we use our grand jury process, and we ensure, we are seeking the truth. And that's bottom line with the process that our office is responsible for, you know, that is the result. We would like the result to be whatever the truth is, and whatever the truth is, that's the direction we'll move in. Again, because it's so early in the investigation, and I certainly don't want to compromise the integrity of the investigation, I really can't go into a lot of details about this specific case, but I can tell you that my office has been very diligent in every case, but in particular in cases where We have been successful in those trials because we don't just move forward on cases just for the sake of trying an officer. We move forward on cases where we believe

that's what justice requires. And so in this case, we are a neutral body. We are independent of the police department. We will review the evidence that they have, but we will also conduct our own investigation and make appropriate charging decisions. Attorney Aisha Braveboy, we really appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Our panel here, joining us right now is Mustafa Santiago Ali, former senior advisor, environmental justice for the EPA. Scott Bolden, former chair, National Bar Association, Political Action Committee, Deontay Johnson, founder, president, Black Conservative Federation. Start with you, Scott. The fact that this police chief moved this quickly.

Shooting took place Tuesday night. He moves with him the next day, arresting him for second-degree murder. That is extremely rare. Yeah, but you can get a lot of facts in a very quick manner. What's interesting about this case is the other police officers who were there on the scene gave the victim immediate resuscitation efforts. But as a former prosecutor, let me say three things. One, we don't have all the facts. There are a lot more facts of this.

This is a really extreme case. Secondly, most police regulations say you don't handcuff a defendant or an arrestee and put them in the front seat. They usually put them in the back seat. Right. So why was he in the front seat? We don't know how many officers were there,

but was there a prior relationship between this police officer and the arrestee? And then the shots. He shot him seven times. That's an execution. You shot a handcuffed man.

A handcuffed man. Seven times. Seven times. Now, uh, that's some type of some level of anger, if you will. And so lastly, either there's a prior relationship and bad blood, in my opinion, or you may have a psychotic cop

who may have killed others and he just hasn't been discovered by the police department or testing or what have you. Well, Mustafa, one of the family members of another victim said that that person

did not have a gun. He claimed that he did, and they asked the state's attorney to investigate that case, and they're now looking into that. So this officer said two other fatal shootings. Yeah, and we need to find out what other charges, not even other charges, but what other things maybe he has done that were outside of the letter of the law.

What I do know is that we've got over 1,100 folks who have been killed by police last year. About a quarter of those have been African-American folks. And this is not the first time that someone has been shot who was handcuffed. And we've had people who've been handcuffed with their hands behind their back before and been shot by police. So, you know, it's a shame that we have these types of egregious things to bring a spotlight once again on the disparity that happens, you know, from the police in relationship to African-American men and men of color.

Deontay, this is one of the issues that people often talk about, again, why police officers, in terms of how they're treated. I mean, very interesting to see how the union now responds because we've seen in other cases, especially when it's a black officer, how the union oftentimes disappears. I think about the cop who killed a white woman in Minnesota. They booked.

I think about the Asian cop who was NYPD, who killed a black man in the stairwell. They testified against him. So it'll be very interesting to see how the union responds. That is interesting. It's, well, to start off, shooting a... retained person is...

there's something beyond, you know, whether... there's something beyond mentally. Like, it's just... that's just sick. Um, it's like, you know, whether... There's something beyond mentally. Like, that's just sick. It's like, you know, I've already got you in my custody, but I want to make sure that you don't go anywhere. It doesn't make any sense.

And so I hope they throw the book at him. I hope he's not just fired, but I hope they throw the book at him. And the unions, you know, it is going to be interesting to see how the unions react. And I hope that they react not based upon, you know, any past incidents, but based upon that you shot a handcuffed man seven times. Yeah, but, Roland, real quick on the police unions.

The Maryland State Police Union legislation or the rules in place allow for a suspected cop who has killed someone to not talk, to not cooperate. And what's significant about that is is that the police chief charged this person, charged this police officer, the corporal, within, I'd say, less than 24 hours. Right. Which means whatever facts he knows

or discovered or was reported, they're pretty confident that they were going to charge him with murder. And, again, we don't have all the facts, but they do. It's murder. Well, again, he was charged with second degree. That's what he was charged with. Now, again, State's Attorney Brayboy, when they go through the indictment, they could actually charge him.

They could actually indict him, same charges, or even take it to first degree murder based upon what they actually find out. So we'll see. We'll certainly see what happens with that. But the bottom line is the fact that the police chief moved that quickly is something that's really important. And we hopefully will see take place in other cases as well. Today, of course, you had questions on the floor of the United States Senate for Trump's lawyers, as well as House Democrats who are leading the impeachment trial. What was very interesting about what we heard today, first of all, we heard some of the most unbelievable, shocking, crazy, outlandish legal theories. And one of them, of course, was Alan Dershowitz. And the one that really just stood out the most

was Alan Dershowitz literally saying that whatever the president wants to do, if he does it in the national interest of him getting reelected it's perfectly legal yo no he didn't say that oh he did could not have said that watch this he could not have said that privilege of attending the rolling out of a peace plan by the president of the united states regarding uh the israel palestine uh conflict and I offered you a hypothetical the other day. What if a Democratic president were to be elected and Congress were to authorize much money to either Israel or the

Palestinians, and the Democratic president were to say to Israel, no, I'm going to withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growth, or to the Palestinians, I will withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growth. Or to the Palestinians, I will withhold the money Congress authorized to you unless you stop paying terrorists. And the president said, quid pro quo. If you don't do it, you don't get the money. If you do it, you get the money. There's no one in this chamber that would regard that as in any way unlawful. The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal. Now, we talked about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure can have. One, a motive in the public interest, and the Israel

argument would be in the public interest. The second is in his own political interest. And the third, which hasn't been mentioned, would be in his own financial interest, his own pure financial interest, just putting money in the bank. I want to focus on the second one for just one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. First of all, let's just understand.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush loses re-election. He withholds about $3 billion to go to Israel, saying, do not continue with your settlements. So that actually happened. But to listen to him say that, oh, just as long as the president does it and if he does something to help his own election efforts because he considers his election in the national interest, it's all good. Definitely poor choice of words.

Definitely poor choice of words. Poor choice of theory. Poor choice of logic. I am not a legal scholar. Hell, I'm not either. It's definitely, definitely poor choice of words. But, you know, I mean, poor choice of words. No, it's not a poor choice of words.

It is, it is. This is one of Donald Trump's lawyers advancing a theory that as long as the president's... What he's saying is that the president donald trump can do whatever he wants as long as he labels it in the national interest so therefore his re-election is in the national interest that is the most illogical thing i have ever heard on the floor of the united states senate by a so-called constitutional scholar. I want to say this.

President Donald Trump can do whatever he wants when it's in the interest of national security and his national interest. That's even false. He can do it. No, actually he can't. If it's going to protect national security, if it's going to protect the country as a whole. No, actually, that can't. If it's going to protect national security, if it's going to protect the country as a whole.

No, actually, that's simply also not true. The president of the United States is not a king. He simply cannot make whatever decision he wants. Now, he could try to cloak it in terms of this is national security, but the president of the United States does not have the right. And please show me anywhere in the Constitution that he can do, you say, whatever he wants. The president of the United States cannot even on his own

declare war on a country. Correct. So that right there refutes what you just said. Because if he says this war is in the national interest, he can't do that. Okay. So the that. Okay. So the president. Okay, you're right and I'm wrong?

I'm going to give you that one. That was my poor choice of words. I've got a poor choice of words. But I will say this. I will say this. When it comes to protecting national security and protecting the country, I'm right with him. I'm sorry, you're right with him what? In protecting our country.

That's not the issue. First of all, this ain't nothing to protect the country. No, that's not what his argument is. You're trying to flip the argument. He said, I'm going to focus on number two. What Al Nersh would say is that if Donald Trump says that my re-election or the re-election of any

president, I can cast any decision that I make, and if it benefits me personally in my re-election, I can cast that as being in the national interest. Agree or disagree? I disagree. So, what the hell?

What are his folks doing? The reality is Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival to benefit him. Scott was crazy about this. DOJ could have. But he didn't ask the Department of Justice. He wanted Ukraine to...

And then he said... Publicly. Y'all got to announce it publicly. That's right, publicly about Biden and his son. The false narrative and the false comparative that Dershowitz expounds on here is laughable. If Donald Trump didn't do that, though, Donald Trump did not say,

I need you to take care of corruption. He couldn't say that because that wasn't what he was thinking. He was thinking about the Bidens. And by the way, DOD, three to four months before, had signed off and cleared Ukraine, having met all the requirements and obligations

to allow this money to go forward based on their anti-corruption efforts. Every time Donald Trump has spoken about Ukraine and corruption, which he could say, and it would be acceptable vis-à-vis giving up the money or letting the money go to Ukraine. But every time he's talked gratuitously,

voluntarily, in the conversation or in writing or in subsequent press conferences, it has always been about the Bidens, his potential political enemy or adversary. That is the quid pro quo. That is wrong, and that's illegal, and that's why he ought to be impeached. What's laughable to me, Mustafa,

is to watch Republicans today all of a sudden again. John Bolton is a traitor, a turncoat. We shouldn't hear from him. Okay, now the White House is even threatening him, you can't release the book. Okay, you can't just say he can't release the book. I mean, he submitted the book to go through the National Security Council process to vet

to ensure that there were not any secrets. Donald Trump, in his mind, says, oh, because you actually had conversations with me and you know how I feel about foreign leaders, you can't talk. No, there are no laws that say that. Right, exactly. You know, this is not a top security issue

that they're talking about, and it's just foolishness. I mean, what they're trying to do is just to confuse folks, to muddy the water so that they can then get to the vote and be able to move forward. And, you know, I've had some respect for the council before who came before the Senate, Dershowitz, but, you know, I don't know if he was having a low blood sugar moment or what is going on with him,

because the mess that they've been sharing is ridiculous. And, you know, it's ridiculous also when folks come on TV, when they come on shows, and they try and, you know, sort of twist the facts. The president... Not sort of. Yeah, the president made a choice. They twist them. He made a choice to pick up the phone and to, you know, make the call

and for him to have it, as was said, to be about Biden. And here's the thing. If he was serious about helping Ukraine to better protect themselves from Russia, then they would have expedited the funds there. And, you know, they decided not to do that. So for folks to say this is about a national security issue or a security issue, it doesn't make sense. It's not adding up. One plus one is not becoming two for them. So, Deontay, why are they so scared of Bolton? Why don't I have him testify? I mean, he literally has written in a book, and he obviously was in a position to know that Donald Trump absolutely tried to coerce Ukraine and withheld congressionally approved funds in order

and saying, I will release it as long as you announce an investigation of the Bidens. Someone that was fired, resigned, or what have you, why would, if one of your staff, you, or what have you, why would... If one of your staff... You fired one of your staff, OK? And you were getting ready to testify about something that happened with your organization.

And it was a bad fire or disagreement or what have you. Do you think they're going to... What do you think is going to happen during that hearing? I have you, what do you think they're going to, what do you think is going to happen during that hearing? I'm sorry, what do you mean? What's going to happen during that hearing? So are you saying that he's lying? He could lie.

He could. Come on. But so what you're saying is that John Bolton, if called to testify, is going to be sworn, sworn testimony. This is all hypothetical now. No, no, no. No, it's not hypothetical. If John Bolton. Well, no, no. Actually, no, it's not hypothetical. If John Bolton...

Well, he hasn't done it. If John Bolton is called, he will be sworn under the threat of perjury. So what you're saying is that John Bolton is going to risk lying before Congress and risk his law degree and risk all of that

to lie because he got fired. Have you never seen anyone lie before Congress? Oh, no, no. And yeah, and I've seen them. And Roger Stone got convicted. Right. He lied on behalf of your guy, Trump, and then he got convicted in the federal court in Florida.

Oliver North, Republican, lied in front of Congress, got convicted, later got overturned. I mean, I can show you... John Boatman also is capable of lying. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. But you're somehow suggesting that because he got fired, that means he's gonna lie. I mean, it's the same process.

So very simple. Should he testify? You get fired. Should he testify? But here's the deal, though. Okay, but here's the deal. You get fired, you write a book to make some money,

and then you lie. No, actually, everybody who got fired by Trump hasn't written a book. I mean, let's just be honest. Trump has fired a whole bunch of people. Correct. And he's hired a bunch of people who he later called a book. I mean, let's just be honest. Trump has fired a whole bunch of people. Correct. And he's hired a bunch of people who he later called incompetent. Maybe the person who's incompetent is the person who hired him.

But again, though, that's what you're dealing with here. And so the question still is, Bolton has said this here. Do you not want to hear him? I honestly don't want to see the hearings at all. Why? Because it's a complete presidential harassment. That's the first thing. How's the harassment? Presidential harassment. How? Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and the list goes on. When the president was sworn into office, they said that

we were going to impeach this president. Actually, all people you named didn't say that. Now, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressman Al Green did, but now Schumer didn't say that, or Pelosi didn't say it, so they'll put words in their mouth. It didn't happen. But I'm asking you again, what Trump did, should he have used the power of the presidency to withhold aid to Ukraine? Is that right or wrong? That's wrong. That's wrong. Okay. Is it impeachable? No. Why not? So what is it then?

So what you're saying is Congress has the authority to regulate these things. They should blow it off? It may not be ethically right, but it's not impeachable. I'm sorry. It's not ethically right? So it's not ethically right. It's not ethically right to take a president down a witch hunt. It's not ethically right to. Hold on.

What's a witch hunt? It's a witch hunt to not ethically right to... What's a witch hunt? It's a witch hunt to continue. No, no, what's a witch hunt? This is all political gain. Here's the question. Did he do this? Did he do it? He should not have done the call. No, no, no. Did he do it?

He should not have done the call. No, no. First of all, he shouldn't have done the call or he should not have asked on the call for them to investigate political rival. Is that wrong? We're making a call. Presidents talk to other presidents. But on the call, the call, he should have done the call. But on the call, he did not break a law. He did not. I'm sorry. The Constitution. Let me be real clear. The Constitution. He didn't say he didn't. I'm sorry. Let's be real clear.

Deontay, Deontay, Deontay, Deontay, Deontay, Deontay. The Constitution does not require for a law to be broken in order for a president to be impeached. Now, your boy Dershowitz said that 20 years ago. Now he's changed his opinion. So y'all can make up your mind which one is it now. But the question still, again, is did Donald Trump ask the president of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? And did he in turn tell his people we're going to withhold the aid from them until they do? Yes or no?

Yes. Is that wrong? No. It's not wrong? No. It's not wrong? So what? So what is it?

Just we should do it? We should let him do whatever he wants to do? The purpose of him doing it was not personal gain. How so? If it wasn't personal gain, if you're asking them to investigate your political rival, whose gain is it for? It's for the country. How?

It's for the country. How? If Obama... What was the good? Nice try. If Obama asked... Hold up, Deontay, nice try. Hold up, Deontay. Deontay, nice try. Hold up, Deontay. Deontay, nice try.

Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Lindsey Graham. Hold on, Deontay, Deontay. Today, Deontay, today, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Ted Cruz literally posed that question today in the impeachment trial. Congressman Adam Schiff stood up and said yes, and if President Obama had called for the investigation of mitt romney or his children and where it would benefit him that would be wrong and would be impeachable your question has been answered but it wouldn't do you know the uh one of the things this whole executive privilege piece we got to remember you can't use it as a sword or and a shield so you can't use it

to prevent illegal conduct or to protect yourself. And the Supreme Court actually said that in the case of Nixon, which was cited today, that a president if that person is involved in wrongdoing, cannot use executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing. So, last point I'm going to make is this. Where's the crime? You don't

need it to be a crime, but if you read the Abuse of Power article of impeachment, it lays out a crime. It just doesn't call it to be a crime, but if you read the abuse of power article of impeachment, it lays out a crime. It just doesn't call it bribery, but it lays out bad and criminal conduct. And so this whole argument about it doesn't, that's not a crime and it's not impeachable, it is a crime. They just called it abuse of power.

And so we have to be really careful to sort through these arguments, these specious arguments the GOP is making, because every time they make one, there is either case law or something that corroborates the falsity of what their arguments are. You can't really get around it. And so, you know, it'll be interesting to see the Senate is on trial, their morality is on trial, their righteousness in the Constitution is on trial. If they don't call witnesses with a straight face, I'll be honest with you, that strengthens the possibility or the probability

of a Democratic president winning. I believe that because you've got to walk away from the independents and the moderate Republicans, and you're not going to get the Democrats. Mustafa, I'm just trying to understand how you can do wrong, but then say, oh, you should be held accountable when the only provision that is provided

in the U.S. Constitution, you know that document Republicans say they love, the party of law and order? The only provision to hold a president accountable for his action is impeachment. It's written in the Constitution. The firm has put it in there for that very reason. This is privilege. This is privilege playing out when someone tells you that this man doesn't have, you know, that he can do whatever he wants.

And it's very disheartening for folks not to live up to their responsibilities in the Senate. Thank goodness that the House did. And here's the other thing. Bolton used to be the poster child for conservatism. So for folks to say that they don't trust him now is really interesting. Real interesting. And that's the reason we need to let him testify. Well, first of all, there's going to be a vote on Friday as to whether or not to allow witnesses.

And then Republicans want to end this as quickly as possible. The State of the Union address is next Tuesday. The question is, do they have the votes? As of last night, Mitch McConnell said he did not have the votes necessary to stop witnesses. So we'll see what takes place over the next 48 hours. All right. For the Trump administration, the attempt to reverse Obama era rules that fight racial discrimination in housing and the segregation of American neighborhoods for a half century known as the Fair Housing Act. The Department of Housing and Urban Development

is completing a regulation scaling back a rule that combats racial discrimination, even when it's unintended, such as banking lenders use of algorithms disproportionately D'Ante, I'm trying to understand this here. Here's a rule that is meant to ensure you do not have discrimination in housing. One of the first things Republicans did when Donald Trump became president was they also overturned an Obama-era rule that was about ending discrimination against black folks when it came to buying cars. Why are Republicans so concerned about repealing or rolling back efforts that are meant

to end discrimination against black people? Well, for starters, this is all about hypotheticals. I read the article, and the article was on what the banks would do. It didn't say what the banks have done. It's what the banks would do. We're estimating on what the banks would do. Actually, the point of the law was...

The point of the regulations were put in place because of what banks did. But we're talking about what they would do. Not what they've done. No, no, no. It was put in place because of what banks did. This is removing it, which means banks could go back to doing what they were doing before.

But the purpose of the rollback was because of some discrepancies within where they talked about the size, where they talked about population. There were some things that was not taken into account in the Obama administration that that's why they rolled it back. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. No. They're rolling it back because Republicans don't like regulations.

It's called deregulation. The same reason why they voted to roll back the rules that targeted discrimination against black folks and buying cars. I'm just trying to understand if Donald Trump so-called loves black people, and black people are doing so well under Donald Trump, why are you rolling back laws intended to end discrimination against black people?

Are black Republicans... Are you defending that? Do you support this effort? I think it's... Like I said, as I said before, it's an article that's taken out of content. No, I'm asking you. It's an article that... Hold up, hold up.

But it's an article that is taken out of content. You mean context. Context, yes. Okay, so put it in context then. Is that there was discrepancies within the Obama rule, okay? They did not take into consideration a population size, which causes problems for places like New York, causes problems for places like Chicago and a lot of our bigger cities. He's about to pull something up on you, by the way. Go ahead, Scott. Go ahead, Scott.

When you look at the banking regulation that's been in place that requires developers, investors, businesses, and rather, I'm sorry, banks, rather, who bank to them, banks to reinvest in challenged communities and communities of color, and that's going to be rolled back, or there's a proposal to roll that back. What I've never understood about Republicans is that this Reinvestment Act not only generates

revenues for banks, but also generates community and economic empowerment to generate revenues and jobs and job training and business growth in our most challenged communities, which strengthens the American economy, strengthens everyone who's a part of that investment deal and strengthens the banks in our communities of color and Republicans are against that which means that it's got you can't there are other issues vis-a-vis whether it's race-based or not right but if it helps if they if it's a rising tide and helps everyone in the American economy then you're left with, well, I just don't want people of color to do well. I only want people that look like

them to do well. Deontay, I want you to answer this. Mustafa wants you to come and hear this from Politico two days ago. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed cutting back on collecting data that helps track discrimination in the mortgage market. You support that? No, I don't support discrimination at all. Hold up, but that's a part of these rollbacks, though. I don't support discrimination at all. However,

the article that was provided talks about a hypothetical. So that's the only article you read? No, I read other articles, but it talks about I mean, right here. It talks about hypothetical. How can you prevent redlining if you don't have the data? I mean, right. How?

Mustafa, I mean, look, you deal with this. Again, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Donald Trump has gutted since he was president, has proposed cutting back on collecting data that it helps track discrimination in the mortgage market. That's according to this political story from a couple from january 25th go ahead yeah i mean this is really simple and i don't know why uh republican brothers and sisters don't get it maybe they do get it and the reason they're moving forward this is an attempt to limit power inside of communities if you are able to garner real estate and build wealth then you can strengthen your communities if If your communities are strengthened, they no longer have to deal with all of these other types of things that

are going on. They can focus on voting. They can focus and have free time to be able to attend meetings, all these various things that actually help to hold people accountable. And here's the other thing, since you wanted to raise President Obama's name. So since President Trump has come into office last year, there were four million Discrimination housing discrimination cases and every year since he's come in it's increased by 8% So let's talk about that for a second if folks are actually trying to do the right thing and help protect folks So all you know and Google that also answer this Deontay this from the same political story The act this is the Fair Housing Act the the act outlawed discrimination in housing.

It also required communities to work to end segregation. But a government audit in 2010 found that HUD's enforcement of the law was largely ineffective. Obama addressed that in 2015 by requiring local governments to track patterns of

poverty and segregation with a checklist of 92 questions to gain access to federal housing funds. That's what Trump wants to roll back. Him being cautious is like, nah, you don't need to fill the form out. So to Scott's point, how do you know there's discrimination

if you aren't tracking to find that out? So in essence, forget all the data. No need for any of that. It's just going to happen. How do you do that if you don't have the data? We should have the data. I'm not going to... I'm not...

I am not saying that there should not be data. Okay, Deontay, I'm confused. I'm not saying there should be data. You're saying there shouldn't be, but the rollback is to stop collecting the data. What I'm saying is we're talking... when we talk in percentage of the bank, when we're talking about the bank, the banks, that's all a hypothetical. That's all I said was that it's a hypothetical of what the banks could do.

No, it's not. We literally have 100 years of history. Did you have a problem buying your house? Hell yes. Hold on. Hold on. a problem buying your house? Hell yes. Hold on. See? See? See?

What are you mad about? Deontay, here's what you do. Never ask a question dads don't know the answer. When my wife and I bought our house, my first wife bought our house in Mansfield, Texas. Okay? Now, both of us, at the time, we're making in excess of $400,000.

Okay. The bank saw our income and of us, at the time, we're making in excess of $400,000. The bank saw our income and asked us, they want to see deposit slips. That shit ain't in the law. There's nowhere it says that I have to supply you. They want to see actual deposit slips. We like, we ain't giving your ass a damn deposit slips. But even with the current law that Obama has. Stop, stop, stop, stop.

You still. No, but even with the current law that Obama has... Stop, stop, stop, stop. You steal it. No, but even with the current law, they can still do that same thing. They can still discriminate. No, no, no. Here's what you still missed. The point of the data is to actually uncover

those things. What the Obama folks did here was they said to cities, you have to submit actual plans to lay out how you're going to end segregation in housing. Ben Carson says, oh, this is too cumbersome. It's too much red tape. Tell that to the black folks who are discriminated against. Tell it to the black people who lost 53% of all black wealth due to the subprime loan crisis. If we did not have data, we wouldn't know those things.

You don't, you're unable, you're unable to prove discrimination if there's no data to actually show it. So for them wanting to sit here and roll it back, that's exactly what it is. And here's what's interesting. White homeownership, 73% today. Black folks at its lowest level since 1968. So why in the hell would the administration

who you support would be wanting to roll back what's already at its lowest point since 1968? Red tape does not stop discrimination. It's not going to stop discrimination. It damn sure can limit it, if I can prove it. It ain't going to stop it. Well, hell, first of all, first of all, America's still a white country.

So we know that ain't going to stop discrimination. So as you just said, when you bought your house in Texas, they asked you for stuff that wasn't even legal for them to ask. And guess what? And guess what? If I was one of those folks who didn't know the law, I could have gotten screwed by the very bank, could have been denied my loan as a result.

But when I let their ass know, they realized I'm one of them Negroes they were afraid of and allowed us to read. So just because I was able to get my loan does not mean, Mustafa, other black folks have not been able to get their loans. To your point, when you were able to show the level of housing discrimination that we've seen in this country. So the best thing that you could do is educate more people so they won't have that? No, no, the best thing I can do...

No, Deontay, the best thing that I can do is to educate people, have lawyers on, and fight the Trump administration from rolling back these sort of procedures which actually help folks. And what you are doing, you're making excuses for Trump. You cannot tell me during the Obama administration that these problems did not happen.

Dude, let me read again. Hold on, stop, stop. Let me read slower. Let me read slower. But you cannot tell me that those problems did not happen during the Obama administration. You cannot tell me that people were not discriminated Let me read slower. Let me read slower. Let me read slower. I'm going to read, Deontay, I'm going to take my time

to read this. The Fair Housing Act outlawed discrimination in... Let me go to a paragraph earlier. Obama tried to add teeth to the Fair Housing Law, which passed in 1968

within a week of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. as deadly riots swept through largely black neighborhoods and cities across the country. The act outlawed discrimination in housing. It also required communities to work to end segregation. But a government audit in 2010, Obama then president since January 2019, let's go to 2008,

found that HUD's enforcement of the law was largely ineffective, meaning that from 1968 to 2010, HUD's enforcement of the Fair Housing Act was ineffective. Quote, Obama addressed that in 2015 by requiring local governments to track patterns of poverty and segregation with a checklist of 92 questions

to gain access to federal housing funds. Now, allow me to translate. What that means is, Obama said, wow, here we have an analysis that's saying the laws have been ineffective. So therefore, we're going to put something in place to strengthen the Fair Housing Act of 1968. To, as in 2015.

Here we are in 2020, and for the last two and a half years, Donald Trump and Ben Carson have been trying to roll that back because, as Carson said, quote, Carson called Obama's system too burdensome and said last year that it was actually suffocating investment in some of our most distressed neighborhoods. This month, he moved towards scrapping the tracking system with a proposal that doesn't include the term segregation.

Now, please explain to me, how will you be able to ascertain that there is segregation in housing if you strike the word segregation and you get rid of the tracking system to actually track segregation. Please, take your time. What I said, and I'm going to repeat myself,

is regardless of whatever red tape, whatever regulation is there, it's still not going to stop segregation. I mean, not segregation. It's still not going to stop discrimination. So, I'm sorry. Let me ask you a question. So, do you want to...

So, your argument is that because discrimination will never be stopped, we can't lower it? No, but you... We can't lessen it? But what you're saying is... We can't bring it down? But we can... We need to fight to make sure that it's stopped in as much way we can. But what I'm saying is you're saying, and this article is saying,

is that because the Trump administration removed the red tape or because the Trump administration removed the regulations, that it's going to cause an uproar and the banks are going to start discriminating against black people again. I'm sorry, Mustafa. Scott, do we not

have history, documentation, when, you know, since, do we not have, first of all, Deontay, Deontay, since you, let me just open a straight up can of whoop-ass on your argument. Don't have. When the Shelby B. Holder decision came down from the Supreme Court, and they gutted Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Scott, what did Republican legislatures do all across the country? What did they do?

Start suppressing the vote. Suppressing the vote. Closing polling locations. Voter ID. Jared Mandry. Closing polling locations. If you have the wrong information... Since Shelby B. Holder,

1,200 voting locations across the South have been shut down. Why? Because after Shelby B. Holder was gutted, you didn't have preclearance of the Department of Justice cleared in election changes. So what does that tell you, Deontay? There's history.

So when Republicans, when the law was eliminated, Republicans quickly moved disenfranchised black people. There's your history lesson for today. Scott, final comment. Well, I think you said it all, quite frankly.

But what difference does it make whether it happens under Obama or under Trump? It's wrong. Let me give you a better argument for you as a Republican. I don't mean to be offensive. I'm a business Democrat. You don't like the 95 questions you got to go through. That's red tape and stuff. Why don't the Republicans not end it, but why don't they amend it?

Why don't they argue that we don't need 95 questions, let's ask 40 questions or even 30 questions because we recognize discrimination exists, but let's narrow it so we can be more efficient with the data and take some of the burdensome off businesses, black, white, yellow, brown, Democrat, or GOP. That's a much better argument, and you wouldn't have the whoop-assies opening up if you said, let's amend it to reduce the red tape. When you take the red tape away, though, and you say the regulations are out of sync or unnecessary,

you then know that the reason the law was in place was because of what banks and regulators did before the regulations were in place. So it's logical that if you take the regulations away, then that bad behavior, that discriminatory behavior is most likely going to return. Why take the risk? Why not keep the regulations in place and strengthen them? Unless you just don't believe, not you, but the GOP just simply doesn't believe that racism exists anymore. That when Trump looks at me, he sees a person, he doesn't see the color of my skin. I know you don't believe that, but my point is the Republicans could do a lot with African-American voters if they would speak to our issues.

They speak against our issues. So that's why you'll always be in the position you're in and in a minority position within the GOP. And whenever I hear GOP, black GOP, black Republicans talk about the Democrats using black people, I think, well, what is the GOP doing with GOP members like you? They're not using you. In fact, Scott.

They're using you worse. And in fact, Scott, this is not just in HUD. Mustafa, they also want to roll back the rules governing the community reinvestment. I just said that. I mean, and so again. So. And so here's. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.

But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.ens the economy. Right. I mean, so, I'm trying to understand. To your point, to your point.

I agree. I agree that we can lessen, we can lessen. He gonna run with that argument. I gave it to him, dog. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I agree, I know, I agree. I feel sorry for him, Roland. No, no, no, no, no.

But it's not even that. Because I'm still, I still think there's too much regulation. Okay, I do too. I mean, listen, I got it. Hold on, hold on, hold on. See, right there, right there. See, Mustafa, you know what? I discussed this yesterday. There's nothing worse than the bullshit

argument, I think there's too much regulation. First of all, that's a bumper sticker slogan. You know what? I said it yesterday. We saw a press conference on the National Transportation Safety Board where the NTSB said they made a recommendation when it came to putting, requiring helicopters

to have a system that's able for them to ascertain topography when they're flying. FAA said, no need for it. So what did they say? If that device had been on the helicopter of Kobe Bryant, they would have been able to detect when they were getting near a mountain.

So what Republicans always jail is, we don't like regulation until something happens, until a bridge collapses, until something blows up, until somebody gets killed. And what's the first thing Americans say? Where were the regulators? Where were the regulators?

And so Donald Trump is slashing regulations all across the board. And you're in an environment, you're seeing it, how fossil fuel companies, they don't give a damn about water, lakes, the air, you name it. They say roll back everything, big business, do whatever you want. But then all of a sudden, when something happens,

well, why didn't we have any regulation? Because the people who yell, we have too much regulation, cut regulations. Exactly. And we need regulations. That's where you have accountability. That's where you have enforcement. And here's the thing, too. So I've been working on policy for a long time and I helped, uh, used to lead 17 federal agencies. So I can talk pretty well about at least 10 to 15 of them. And if you go through and look at many of the agencies, the environmental protection agency,

HUD, department of labor, commerce, a number of these other places, and you look at how they've been manipulating the science and also the capturing of data, the reason they do that is so they can manipulate the policy. And I have not yet seen a policy choice that has been made that has actually helped our communities to be in a stronger position. And what I've done is when I'm out speaking around the country, I ask people to raise their hand. If you are in a better place that your life is more protected, your health has been protected, and nobody has raised their hand.

And I've been in places like Kentucky and West Virginia and Montana and Maine. So not just in more liberal locations. And that's what's going on. And I just want to say one last thing, because we have not called his name out enough. So the person who is running HUD right now, Secretary Carson, needs to be called out for allowing these types of things. You have to have a spine, especially when you come from our communities and you're put in a position where you can actually do things to help to benefit that community, to make a difference. And when you're not doing it, what does that say? When I was a young boy, I used to be mesmerized by the things that he was able to do as a surgeon.

So maybe he's not the right person. Well, we know. No, let me just call it out like it is. He is not the right person to be at HUD. Now, if you want to put somebody there that you can manipulate and who allow these types of regulations to be rolled back or to be put in place things that are not beneficial for our communities, then that's what you get. And he's going to have to at one time take a look back if he had the opportunity to help folks and was manipulated. Final comment. You got one? I want to say, so there's a difference between common sense regulations

and just regular BS regulations. What's a regular BS regulation? Right, what is that? I believe in less regulations. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's a statement. No, I need an example. What is that?

When we look into, when it comes to business owners, the amount of, the amount that it, even let's talk about black business. No, no, no. We're talking about this. We're talking about housing. We're talking about this. What they're rolling back, what's BS?

What I was saying was regulation in general. No, I want to... We ain't talking about BS. We ain't having no general regulation conversation. He mentioned about Republicans and regulation, so I was responding about regulation. So what's BS? Name one BS regulation.

No, no, no, what's BS? Let's go into, so like I said, black business. The process that we, well, this business is in general. No, hold on. You say black business, not business in general. Because black business is not part of business. Give me the regulation that's BS. Give me the regulation.

So, as a 501 president, person who has a 501... That's not a business. That's a nonprofit. Nonprofit. No, no, no, no, no. You said business. Even a nonprofit is the amount of things that we have to go to. No, no, hold on. Deontay, here's the deal.

If you're going to bring something up, stay on track. You said BS regulations, black business. You said business in general. Now you went to nonprofit. No. Give me. I said regulations in general. Give me a specific regulation that's BS.

Specific. Not general. Specific. You got to have one. That's why I went to nonprofits. I'm speaking of what I... Now, hold up. You can't say...

I'm speaking about what I... No, hell no. You can't say that you got BS regulations for black businesses. Then you move to business in general. Then you move to nonprofits. Okay, then you move to non-profit. Okay, fine. In your non-profit. Give me the regulation that's BS.

I'm going to let you continue to talk some talk because I can't say anything. No, because you can't name a regulation. I can't say anything because you can't close your mouth. Deontay, you can't name a regulation. You can't close your mouth. Your 501c4. Can you close your mouth?

Give me one of those. Can you close your mouth? Give me one of those. Give me one of those. I'll wait. As I said. Give me one of the 501c4. So, for instance, so now, and this is probably political, so if we as the 501c4 have to decide that we want to support a candidate, okay?

Now, it used to be where you can just support a candidate, you can, you know, put used to be where you can just support a candidate, you can put money into whatever candidate you want to or whatever. Now, they didn't change it to where you now have to if you support a candidate,

as a 501c4, there's not much that we have to do, but now when it comes to reporting, now, we have to now report with the FEC now just to deal with the candidate. Okay, stop right there. Now, you said before, what was the previous non-profit

status? C4. No, it was C3. And the previous non-profit status, 501C3, you were not allowed to actually support... Now, hold up. See? Now I'm about to teach you. Go ahead.

Because, see, you just walked into another damn trap. You made a big-ass mistake. There used to be a 501c3. And a 501c3 could not endorse a political candidate. They still can. They still can. Allow me to finish. A 501c3 cannot endorse a political candidate.

Correct. They can support issues. But why are we talking about 501c3 and not talking about 501c4? Because I'm about to educate you. The IRS allowed the creation of a 501c4 for individuals, organizations, to be able to be involved in politics. So, for instance,

the NAACP, when George W. Bush ran for president in 2000. NAACP is still a three. See, if you shut up and learn something, you might, just pay attention. The NAACP had a 501C3 and a 501C4. The NRA has a 501C3 and a 501C4.

The National Rifle Association Foundation is their 501C3. The National Rifle Association is the 501C4. The NAACP in 2000, when George W. Bush was president, the NAACP is a 501C4. The NAACP in 2000 when George W. Bush was president, NAACP is a 501C3. But they created a 501C4 which allowed for them to run the commercial of dealing with James Byrd being dragged down and targeting

George W. Bush. So guess what? Organization can have a 501C3 and a 501C4. The C4 provision says, yes, you can support candidates, but we require you to file paperwork because the commercials that you run are aiding a candidate. So we've got to ensure that they are abiding by the law of the Federal Election Commission. Now, what you complaining about is why do we got to file the paperwork? Because you can't be involved in

supporting a candidate if you are unwilling to file your paperwork. Now, you bitching about some paperwork when all you got to do is fill a damn form out. So if you don't want to fill a form out, because say a 501c3, but now you can't support the candidate. So stop whining about some paperwork because that's required to ensure you don't have folks buying elections. That's why there are rules. You have to source the funds. That's it. Simple as that.

Just saying. But next time, dog, if you want to clean up BS regulation, have one ready. Don't ever get caught on television again. It don't look good. Got to go to a break. Now I know why Roland doesn't get media hits. No, actually, I don't get media hits. Guess what? Because you don't know how to talk to me. I don't look good. Gotta go to a break. Now I know why Roland doesn't get media hits. No, actually, I don't get media hits. Guess what?

Because you don't know how to talk to me. I don't? No. Guess what? You are the most disrespectful person on TV. Let me ask you this question. Who was on ABC This Week with Stephanopoulos on Sunday? I saw that.

No, no. And you didn't act like that, though. Oh. You didn't act like that. Hold up, hold up, hold up. Guess what? Would you like, I sure question Alice Stewart when she raised the phone.

But you weren't talking like you're talking now. Because guess what? Who's sitting in this host chair? And here's the deal. Deontay, this is real simple. Deontay, this is real simple. Deontay, this is real simple. It's real simple.

You embarrass yourself. Deontay, you embarrass yourself when you come on and you do not have facts to back up your argument. It has nothing to do with embarrassment. It's common sense. Deontay, you ask Deontay. I know your mama talked to you. Deontay, you asked Deontay. I know your mama talked to you. Actually, let me help you, Deontay. My mama and my daddy.

See, I had a daddy in my life. So, mama and daddy. We're both. In fact, daddy watching, too. But you don't bring folks on your show. You don't cuss at them. You don't talk to them crazy. That's just common sense.

Deontay, you know what common sense is? If you're going to bring up BS regulations, and then you can't name one? Listen, listen. No, hell no. That's all I'm saying. Deontay, you look foolish when you bring stuff up and you can't

even back up your own argument. But someone should have talked to me. Deontay, if I replay the last hour and five minutes, this is what I'm gonna replay. You going, uh, uh. You won't let nobody talk. No, because you can't. You ain't got facts.

You cannot. No, listen. Bro, you ain't got facts. I got to go to a break right now. We come back. We're going to talk to Dr. Ben Amalo of the Washington Post in an article where his fellow scientist said that he

is pretty much a fraud. Did not found CTE. Huh. He responds next to Roland Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's youtube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know. If you want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered, be sure to join our Bring the Funk fan club.

Every dollar that you give to us supports our daily digital show. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. As Roland Martin Unfiltered, support the Roland Martin Unfiltered daily digital show by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Our goal is to get 20,000 of our fans contributing 50 bucks each for the whole year. You can make this possible. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Join Dr. Jackie Hood Martin as she engages others to

think like a leader. Are you looking to enhance your leadership or that of your team in 2020? You can join her newest online course, The Mastermind Group, How Successful People Think. She will be your guide as you learn timeless leadership principles to apply to daily living. The offer expires February 28th, so register at www.LiveToLead.com

forward slash Leesburg. That's LiveToLead.com forward slash Leesburg. Since 2005, when Dr. Bennett Amalu first reported finding widespread brain damage in a former NFL player, concerns about CTE have inspired a global revolution in concussion safety and warn of a crisis for America's most popular sport. Amalu's discovery, which was initially ignored and then attacked by NFL ally doctors, inspired scientific research that forced the league to acknowledge a link between football and brain disease. But according to a recent story published in the Washington Post,

there is consensus among a lot of folks in the brain science community that Amalu routinely exaggerates his accomplishments and dramatically overstates the known risk of CTE in contact sports. They also believe that Amalo did not discover or name the disease. Joining me right now to defend, to respond to the Washington Post article in this exclusive interview,

the first time he's commented since it was published, is forensic pathologist and mineral pathologist Dr. Bennett Amalo. Doc, welcome back to Roller Martin Unfiltered. Hi, Roland. How are you? Thank you for having me. So, the Washington Post dropped this story, and the first thing they say is that you have overstated the fact that you discovered CTE.

They also said, according to these various scientists, that you didn't even name it, that that name has existed for decades. How do you respond? Okay, how I responded, 18 years ago, these were the same claims the NFL made. But the NFL did not go to the pages of a newspaper. We went to the scientific domain.

They published a scientific paper, and I responded. and that crushed it. And suddenly, they are coming back in a very dubious way to go to the pages of a newspaper and make claims that are very reckless and very dangerous. The moment you begin to attack scientists like myself on the public domain, that is not good for science.

You come up with a hypothesis, like I did in 2002 after the Mike Webster case. Before Mike Webster, we knew of dementia pugilistica. So the NFL attacked me and said the Mike Webster case was not dementia pugilistica. And so the NFL attacked me and said that my Webster case was not dementia pugilistica. I said, yes, it's not dementia pugilistica. Then what is it? That we may be getting it wrong. We've always believed this only affected boxers,

that it did not affect only boxers, that it affects everybody who has suffered from traumatic brain injury. And instead of calling this disease dementia pugilistica, we had to give it a new name. The big question was, what name do we give it? I couldn't call it dementia futbolitica, or Mike Webster's disease, or football dementia.

I had to give it a name. With a name that is already in the literature. Because if I had to give it a name with a name that is already in the literature. Because if I don't give it a name that is already in the literature, it wouldn't pass the double principle of law. It would be dismissed in the court of law as a novel idea. It's hard to say, oh, because I wasn't the first to use the name that I didn't discover a disease. There's a word I want to use, but I don't want to use it here. It's irresponsible. It's reckless.

Why do you think they did not make these claims on the pages of a science journal or a science paper? Because no journal will publish that. That is very silly and stupid. So my comment is we need to ignore such reckless claims. And I think the colleges of physicians across the world should speak out and condemn such cowardly acts. So, Doc, I got to ask you this question. I got to ask you this question. So this is what the Washington Post says. Omalu did not discover CTE, nor did he name the disease.

The alarming statistics he recites about contact sports are distorted according to the author of the studies that produced those figures. And while Omalu cultivates a reputation as the global authority on CTE, it's unclear whether he is diagnosing it correctly according to several experts on the disease. Okay. I was the first to publish a paper on CTE in football players, on CTE in wrestlers, CTE in mixed martial arts, CTE in the military.

So when I was publishing these papers, there were no criteria for the diagnosis of CTE. Until 15 years, 14 years later, after I had published all my papers. And in 2009, I came up with the types of CTE I was seeing. So what the Washington Post is saying, that Amalu did not use the criteria for the NIH, that were not existent when I was doing my work. Does that make sense to you? Right, because in this article, they're saying that what you publish does not depict or describe the disease

as the medical science community defines it. So what they're saying is that you initially defined it differently than how they're defining it. So what they're saying is because they have set the standard definition, that yours is irrelevant. That is nonsensical. Let me give you a good analogy. Dr. Alzheimer's defined and discovered Alzheimer's disease over 100 years ago.

The criteria Dr. Alzheimer's used then are totally different from the criteria we use today. But nobody has said that Dr. Alzheimer's did not discover CTE or did not discover Alzheimer's disease because he did not use the criteria we are using today. But when it comes to somebody like me, it's totally different. So don't listen to such, and I said in my response, we don't practice science on the pages of a newspaper. Even a scientist has a problem with the hypothesis I proposed in 2002. Let him write a scientific paper, and I would respond. What I did in 2002 was I did a very disruptive work, a book-making work that totally changed the way we look at traumatic brain injury. And then I invited other doctors to test my hypothesis.

This is what I believe. And since 2002, there has not been a single paper that has disputed my work and my hypothesis and propositions. Thousands of papers have been published confirming that Oumalu is right. So let me tell you what happened. The NFL and their so-called doctors, if you notice, they don't mention the doctors' names. We fought this battle 14 years, 18 years ago.

I prevailed. The truth prevailed. We all prevailed because this is for the good of humanity. And now, because they lost the first battle, they're now coming to play dirty, to go to the pages of the newspaper where I cannot respond. If you want to respond, they tell you, oh, we don't think we can publish it now. So the narrative, maybe they believed, because it's 20 years now, that people may have forgotten what happened. So they are coming now with alternative truths. These are very complex and complicated scientific principles. And in science, there are the innovators,

people who think outside the box, people who are disruptive in the way they think. And there are people who are there to recycle work that has been created. What happens is when you are innovative, people are more likely to attack you and challenge you because you're disrupting the way they are comfortable with.

Doc, I want to read this paragraph here. Stephen Dikoski, a neurologist and deputy director of the McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida, was one of Amalu's early collaborators. In a phone interview, Dukoski said he and Amalu knew in 2005 they had not discovered a new disease. Dukoski knew the disease as dementia pugilistica, however, and agreed with Amalu

that they should rename it because Webster hadn't been a boxer. Amalu suggested CTE. Dukoski believed then that Amalu had come up with the name, he said, until he later learned researchers had been using the term for years. Quote, I was a bit embarrassed, Dikoski said. He said he has no idea why Amalu continues to claim he discovered and named the disease. How would you respond to what Stephen Dikoski said? If you look at it, my question, I was the primary author. Dikoski was a co-author. I wrote the paper. So Dikoski, who was a much senior, Dikoski is now retired, the much senior doctor, he didn't know what I did on day-to-day basis while writing the

paper. So what I did in 2002 was I introduced a new concept that this is more than boxes. This is not dementia, that the way we've been thinking about this disease for hundreds of years is wrong. That this disease affects every spectrum of contact sports. We couldn't call it dementia pugilistica because this is not dementia pugilistica. I did not discover the concept that traumatic brain injury causes brain damage. No. Before the work we did, we used to think dementia pugilistica was called what is called an amyloidopathy. We thought it was a different type of protein.

And I said, no, what I'm seeing here is not amyloid. What I'm seeing here is tau. So this is a completely new disease or new disease process, whatever you want to call it. We couldn't give it, call it dementia, put your list together. So this disease we've discovered, what do we call it? I couldn't give it any name I wanted. I went back to the literature to look for names that are already in the literature. I have never said that I was the first to use that terminology. It is not possible.

How could you be the first to use the terminology chronic, traumatic, encephalopathy? These are generic terminologies. But the naysayers will warn, you know, when people are not being honest and truthful, they will add up lies to make their alternative truths more believable. I have never said I was the first to use the terminology. It's not possible. It's like saying that Albert Einstein was the first to use the terminology theory of relativity. But in terms of the disease we saw, we needed to give it a name.

And because of a principle called the Daubert Principle, people could research it as D-A-U-B-E-R-T. I couldn't use a new name for it. So I used names already in the literature to name these diseases we've discovered. I made several hypotheses in my paper that other scientists should test my hypothesis. And guess what? I was proven wrong. CTE has become an accepted disease. Even a household name, everybody, including my nine-year-old son, knows what CTE is. The science has moved forward. So why are we going back

to what happened 18, 20 years ago. What do you think is at play here? Do you believe that there are other doctors, scientists, researchers who want to be the leader in this? This is sort of like when folks were dealing with HIV and AIDS and you had these different doctors across the globe who were trying to be the first to discover this or discover that to go down in history. Do you believe that that is what is at play here

with this article or these doctors? That is what is at play here. You know, I'm not American. I'm a foreigner who came to America to discover a disease in America's most popular sport. Many American doctors find that embarrassing. And there's been a narrative to displace me. But what I want to share with the world, I'm a Christian. Today, I performed nine autopsies.

I'm very aware of my mortality. Look, Kobe Bryant died last weekend. I could be dead tomorrow. What does it beget you to inherit the whole world and lose your soul? Because you want to be recognized for something Omalu was recognized for, you're willing to destroy Omalu's name just for your own self-aggrandizement. That is what is called wickedness. And people should see it for what it is.

This happened 18, 20 years ago. I've moved on. What I'm working on now is how to find ways to diagnose CTE in living people and to treat CTE. I've moved away from how CTE is diagnosed. Let other people take care of that. I'm moving on to the next frontier. I mark my word.

When I do the same work, some other person will come to take a benefit from it. And I've been told long, long, I did not grow up in this country. But African-Americans have told me that, look, Bernard, what you're experiencing is a repeat of precedence, of the experience, the black experience in America. That is what I've been told, that I should stand strong, let my work speak for itself.

So let me ask you, my work has existed now for almost 20 years. How come suddenly, 18, 20 years later, people are beginning to talk about what happened 20 years. How come suddenly, 18, 20 years later, people are beginning to talk about what happened 20 years ago? And when I did my work, this was the same narrative the NFL made. The same narrative they gave to impeach

me, to discredit me. But they did it on the pages of Science Journal. They did not do it on the pages of a newspaper written by did not do it on the pages of a newspaper written by a sports writer who doesn't have any science background. Many of the things said in that article are bogus, are shameful, and sometimes I wonder. I hold America in very high regard.

Well, after I read that article, I'm like, gee, is this the America I knew when I was a child? What is going on? So, I just want to be clear, because you actually, you said something, and it was also in this piece here, that you did not name CTE. You diagnosed a concept. But you admit that that name, the name CTE, had been around for a number of years. Yes, that is what I've...

In fact, if it had not been around, I wouldn't have used it. That is the point I'm making. Because of the double D-A-U-B-E-R-T, I'm also a forensic pathologist, because I knew this disease was an occupational disease that sooner or later it would be in the court of law, which happened.

And successfully, we had the settlement. And there are so many be in the court of law, which happened. And successfully, we had the settlement. And there are so many cases in the court of law today, okay? So I chose that name because it was already in existence. And that was the name. It's like, when you have a son, my son is Mark. And I named him Mark. And somebody is going to say, oh, Mark is not my son, because he's not the first person to be called Mark. That's nonsense. So the name had been there, and I went to, I had 26 names that I found in the literature, and I selected chronic traumatic encephalopathy

because it sounded very erudite. It had a good acronym. And it is actually a very generic terminology. It doesn't really mean anything. It's not a specific name. It doesn't really mean it's a bad brain associated with trauma. So I said, this is the terminology I will use. And I said to the world, this disease I'm proposing to the world that I saw in Mike Webster's brain. I will call it chronic traumatic encephalopathy. And this is what I believed caused it. Repeated banging of his head.

Concussions and subconcussions. Let the wall go tested and prove me wrong. The wall did not prove me wrong. In fact, I've been recognized. People have said, Bennett, oh my gosh, you were very successful. How did you come up with this concept? So you now notice, rather than debating the concept, the disease with me,

they are now moving away to the periphery to pick up things that are immaterial, that don't really make any sense. Why don't you engage me in the debate? What is CTE? I said, I said, there are many, many more. If you go back to my first paper, that I believe this disease was an epidemic. Guess what? The same Dr. McKee that is criticizing me did a study and found that almost 99% of the retired football players have CTE.

Here you go. I wrote an op-ed in the Daily Mail newspaper two months ago. They discovered that soccer players in Scotland have a higher risk of developing dementia and CTE. I was invited. I wrote an op-ed. And guess what? Today, Scotland is limiting heading in soccer. The same thing in America. I said no child under the age of 18 should have the ball. Guess what? The Soccer Federation in the United States has reduced the, has stated no child under the age of 12 should have the ball. So everything I've pronounced, everything I have said, people have validated and reproduced

on the pages of scientific journals. So what is the problem? Dr. Benet Amalo, we certainly appreciate you taking the time to share with us your thoughts and give us an exclusive interview responding to this Washington Post article.

Thanks, sir. Thank you so much, Alan. I want to go to my panelist, Mustafa. Thanks, sir. Thank you so much, Alon. All right. I'm going to go to my panel and Mustafa. Again, look at this Washington Post piece. All the different doctors here, and I think if you look at it, and the reason I use the AIDS example,

I mean, I remember all of these folks were clamoring who discovered what and who was going to find a cure and who all these different and it was a battle because it came down to who eventually, for history, will be the one who gets the credit. Do you think that's what is at play

here? I think there's a strong possibility that there's something like that that's going on. But also, we know that also with who found things, there are resources that are tied to that. And, you know, sometimes that is it, you know, there's a connection that's there. Well, it's in this article, in this article, to that point where the perfect example I'll read from what the Post reported. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

recently launched a $16 million effort to study CTE in people who are still alive. It involves 50 investigators at 17 institutions. Amalo said he believes racism also played a role in his not being included in that group. Then NIH says that as a matter of policy they cannot discuss applicants for a grant other than those who received it but that the grant making system is entirely transparent. Amalo is trying to also raise his own 10 million dollars to fund a clinical trial on this whole issue. Yeah a lot of dollars that are attached to research. Don when I used to work for Congressman Conyers,

he used to always tell me, follow the dollars, and it'll tell you everything you need to know about a situation. So we need to make sure that people are paying attention to that also and see who's truly benefiting from this. Deontay, your assessment of what you heard from Doc and then, of course, this Washington Post article. I agree. You know, it's all about the dollars.

It's all about the Benjamins. And you definitely want to, uh... You know, who gets the credit also based upon, you know, where they want to put the money. Um, and also, I think it does play a race issue of, you know... You know, in history, who do you want to be known as... finding a cure for AIDS? You want to be known for finding a cure for AIDS. You want to be known for finding a cure for cancer.

So I think that's why I met with that. Again, it was very interesting to read this article. So I certainly appreciate Dr. Amalo for coming on the show, sharing his thoughts. Got to go to break real quick, and then we'll come back with our final story back on Roller Mark Unfiltered in a moment. You want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered?

Be sure to join our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar that you give to us supports our daily digital show. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real as Roland Martin Unfiltered support the Roland Martin Unfiltered daily digital show by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com

Our goal is to get 20,000 of our fans contributing 50 bucks each for the whole year. You can make this possible. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. On Monday and Tuesday, the Congressional Black Caucus is calling for an emergency national summit of African-American leadership on Monday, February 3rd. There will be a convening taking place at the Hyatt Regency Washington Capitol Hill.

We will be there live streaming the event as well. Then on February 4th, on Tuesday, there is going to be a day-long session taking place in the United States Capitol at the theater there as well. And so this is about focus on the 2020 election, but also the U.S. Census. And so the Congressional Black Caucus Political Action Committee will be holding the event on Monday, and the CBC will be holding the event on Tuesday. For more information, go to cbc.house.gov forward slash 2020 summit. That's cbc.house.gov forward slash 2020 summit. Virginia officially became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment

on Monday. This will likely lead to court fights over whether the measure can be added to the Constitution. State lawmakers made history earlier this month when each chamber of the General Assembly separately approved ratification resolutions. On Monday, the House and Senate took the final procedural step of signing off on each other's measures. Here's the announcement. So this is it. This is the day that Virginia becomes the 38th and final state needed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment into the United States Constitution. Standing here today, I know the shoulders of the giants that I stand on. The people who came before me fighting for the Equal Rights Amendment for decades.

To all of you, I say thank you. Thank you to the women and men who have agitated for equality, disrupted the status quo, and fought fearlessly for change. I, along with 160 million women and girls across this nation, your mothers, your daughters, we say thank you. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. These 24 words will be the 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. The resolutions on bipartisan votes oversee my Senate President Pro Tem Luis Lucas

and House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn. Both Filler-Corn and Lucas are the first women to hold their titles in Virginia. The push for ratification on the Equal Rights Amendment has been a long battle, and the future is certainly still uncertain. All right, folks, the Grammys took place on Sunday. And what is happening there, of course, folks, music and all the folks walking the red carpet.

But one of the issues that came up again was why is it that black celebrities ignore black media on the red carpet. Now, black media folks have been complaining about this for a number of years, not only at the Grammys, but at the Emmys, at the Oscars, all of these major awards show how many of these publicists will simply just walk their clients by, because also what happens is they put black media at the end of the carpet. And so you go through all the major media outlets first. And then they're tired of talking. So it's like, oh, I got to get inside. I got to get inside.

And they bypass black media. Well, Black Tree Media, Jamal, first of all, Black Tree Media, which has covered the show for the last 14 years, they were there with their cameras this year and actually decided to show what took place. Check this out. Hey, Gucci. Come on, man.. Check this out. Hey, Gucci. Come on, man. Do it for the black media, Gucci. This is black-owned media, Gucci.

Don't just do people. Come on, Gucci. Come on, Gucci, man. Come on. The hood right here. Hey, Gucci, I was in 6 Southwest with you. Gucci, I was in 6 Southwest. Come on, man.

Do the black media, man. Don't just do vulture. Don't just do the, don't just do people. Don't just do people, Quavo. Come on, Quavo. How you gonna be for the hood like that? I'm pick you. One time, bro. What is it? Okay.

Malamite. Joining us now is Jamal Finkley, show creator of Black Tree on TV. Jamal, man, you've straight up got a lot of people's attention with this, and you just said enough is enough. Yeah, yeah. I mean, as any journalist, like, you hate to be the story. I'm used to covering celebrities,

and they're always the exciting story for our viewers on all of our partner networks and everything. But, I mean, it was a time, it was an emotional time, you know, just hearing about Kobe and everything, and part of you just wanted to be like, But I mean, it was a time, it was an emotional time, just hearing about Kobe and everything. And part of you just wanted to be like, yo, we only here for a limited time. I'm tired of not saying anything.

I'm tired of not showing it. Because after all these years, it should be different. And I feel like we all play a part in that. So that's why I wanted to just turn the lens around and say, let me just show people what I really see. Because they only see the good side of it all the time. I'm like, let me just show you how it really is.

Like, what the struggle is for us. And look, this is not just something that happens even at these award shows. I mean, look, we've talked about it. I mean, it happens at the NAACP Image Awards. I mean, last year we were on the red carpet, and I forgot my sister's name, but she was the star of If Bill Street

Could Talk. And it was a trip because her publicist was telling her, no, no, no, not to do it. We're going to wait for, I think, what's extra, or as is Hollywood. And she's literally looking at her going, okay, he just talked to me last month. And we shot the whole deal. We actually have the video of it.

And so that happens. And the thing that I don't understand, Jamal, is, and I keep saying this, and I've been saying it for years, to all these black stars, you pay them. Exactly. You don't, you can say, no, no, I'ma go talk for 30 seconds to black media. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's disheartening. And when you know, like the whole other side of it, that, you know, I was, I was next to a string of, uh, uh, three black media outlets and, um and allhiphop.com and The Grape and EUR Web was a bit down.

And, you know, these ladies and gentlemen that's working in the industry got their hair done, got nice suits, you know, people being paid. And it's just like, this is work. We're here to get content, to share with our viewers, to tell a story. And if you guys just ignore us like this, how do we survive? Yeah, but the other thing, Jamal, let's just be honest.

These same folk beg us to come on our platforms before they blow up. And then when they blow up, all of a sudden, it's like, oh, now, oh, now you can't talk to us. Right, right, right. I mean, that's definitely the lineage of going from being, you know, talking and then not. But then there's some of the biggest stars that always talk.

Will Smith always talks. Tom Cruise, if you could get on the carpet, he always talks. And you look at it like part of it was thinking about we've had four interviews with Kobe Bryant. We interviewed Nipsey right on the eve of his death in one of

his first interviews. And you think about those greatest stars sometimes because what makes them great is like the way they know the business. And when you see, you know, a lot of, a lot of people just taking us for granted and not talking to us, it's a slap in the face. It's disrespectful. And it's just, there's no way for us to progress as media outlets, as, as, you know, as people that's holding their image, you know, with some endearment. There's no way for us to do that when we don't have the opportunity.

Well, and that's absolutely it. So, look, we certainly appreciate you showing that, exposing that. People need to see it. People also just need to understand what we have to deal with in black media. And like I said, when people get in trouble, it's amazing how they got our phone numbers. It's amazing how, or when they're working on a project and they're not getting

the publicity support, and it's an independent project, how man, they all got our emails and phone numbers. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. All right, Doc. There's a lot of facets to it, and phone numbers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Definitely. All right, Doc. There's a lot of facets to it, man. I just hope, like, this conversation,

although, like I said, I'm uncomfortable being a part of the story, I mean, I just hope this conversation leads to, you know, some bigger solutions. So us looking in the mirror, the publicists looking in the mirror, the studios, these publicist looking in the mirror, the studios, these award show staff, like, I think, like,

everybody needs to look in the mirror and say, like, if we're gonna be accountable for everything, if we're gonna respect everybody in 2020, if we're gonna be moving into this right direction, we need to, like, stop ignoring what's the obvious, uh, just... I had, uh, beauty an obvious just misfortune. Yep. All right, Jamal, I appreciate it, man.

Thanks a lot. Thank you, Roland. This is the thing, Mustafa, that people... I appreciate it, Jamal. Thanks a lot. That people don't understand that it's real. That when you're in black media, how you

get dissed and ignored. Yeah, I mean, you gotta take care of home. And, you know, for folks coming up, you should treat folks the same way when you get to the top. But you made the best point, is that you know, you are paying folks. And stop allowing them to herd you.

Stop allowing them to tell you who you can and cannot speak to. And make sure that you are paying folks and stop allowing them to heard you stop allowing them to tell you who you can and cannot speak to and make sure that you are supporting, you know, where you come from. Deontay, that's the thing that I mean, I look at this can apply to politics. Same thing happens when you have politicians who don't necessarily want to do what's right. Then all of a sudden, you've got to call them out when they, they'll quickly call the Washington Post and the New York Times and those folks, and then they ignore black media. Then of course, a story crops up,

dealing with past racial comments, and next thing you know, boy, they're gonna call black people left and right. I think it's the same thing even as a strategist, how hard you work to get a candidate in, and they get elected, and two years later, whatever, you know, during the off year when they're not running, you hear nothing from them, or when it's a scandal,

oh, they need you. Or even just a black organization, even black Republican organization, and I've seen this with white Republicans and black Republicans, is that when you need something when nothing's going on, you don't hear from them, but when there's a scandal, especially if there's a black issue,

oh, yeah, I'm gonna call the Black Association and see if they can release a statement. I wanna play this here. This is an interview that I did with Carewatch a couple of years ago where we actually talked about this. I should have it up, go to it. Preach it, preach, preach. I've been in black media more than anybody else. And I have interviewed a lot of people,

political entertainment. And what I've told many people this, what I appreciate is your deal has been, I am talking to Roland. I'm doing this media. 2012, we were back and forth trying to get you on, talk about scandal. I had Judy on. I had Columbus on. I always, and I remember we were standing. I was doing a live shot. You both do a live hit. And we didn't realize that we were standing next to each other.

And so we hug and you turn to the ABC person. You are getting me on TV One. Yeah. And you make that point that that's important, and I tell black folks in Hollywood all the time, we're always here. Don't forget your community. Don't forget us.

Don't forget where you come from. Don't forget your community. Why would you want to? It's who you are. You know, you can do everything, but don't let go of yourself to do everything. Do everything as yourself, with yourself, with your community. Otherwise, you will be lost.

Absolutely. Always a pleasure. I love you. Appreciate it. I love you as well. Let me tell you what actually happened there. So she was doing, it was either Jimmy Kimmel or the Jimmy Fallon.

And this was when she was doing the HBO movie where she played Anita Hill and Wendell Pierce played Clarence Thomas. And the publicist, they were like, well, you know, we got to do this interview over here. And so they wanted to give me

20 minutes and then do the longer interview with one of those two. Carrie said, how about they get 20 minutes and Roland gets the hour? And that's exactly what happened.

That's how we got the hour interview. Because she said no. Because she also was like, yo, when nobody forgets, Scandal was a she said no. Because she also was like, yo, when what nobody see everybody, what everybody forgets Scandal was a mid-season replacement. It was an eight episode mid-season replacement

that was in the spring of 2012. They were not put on the fall schedule in 2011. She told me about the show in 2011. And I sent the first tweet out when they didn't get picked up on the fall schedule. All these people talk about they call themselves

these gladiators. No, no. I sent the first tweet out saying, my disappointment, Scandler didn't get picked up. People didn't realize that Scandler only had a 13-episode commitment in the fall of 2012. Because the ratings kept getting better, ABC said let's do a full season of 22 episodes.

Okay? So all you people who watch Scandal, if you see the episode where Tony Goldwyn, playing the president, he suffocates the Supreme Court justice, that was supposed to be the season ending and show ending episode. But then it got picked up,

so they were like, oh, damn, because those episodes are already in canon. Like, okay, we got to figure out how to restart the show. So Carrie was like, yo, who was riding for me before the New York Times and People Magazine were calling? And that's why she did that. And so that's why that's important. And so I hope by Jamal calling out those black celebrities that they

will have some level of consciousness and tell their publicist that, yo, if I got to be inside the doors in 15 minutes, I'm going to cut some stuff short here. I got to make sure that I do it down there. Even if you do, even if you got three, four, five folks down there

and you simply, they all do an interview together. That way they're all able to get some stuff. You can't do individual, that's fine. But that has to happen, and I'm telling you, for y'all to realize it, it's a whole bunch of people. A whole bunch of people in politics, and a whole bunch of people in business,

and entertainment, who do this stuff to black media all the time. I run three black newspapers, two black cable networks, black website, black magazine. I've seen it, and I personally cussed some folks out and made clear I will not play that game because demanding that you're going to respect what we bring to the table.

And sometimes you've got to have that attitude. So I appreciate what Jamal did there with Black Tree TV. Folks, last story here. Chris Dolman, a star defensive end at Pitt from 1981 through 1984, who went on to a Hall of Fame career. The dominant pass rusher of the NFL has passed away. He was 58 years old. The fourth overall pick of the 1985 draft by the Minnesota Vikings.

Dolman played 15 seasons in the NFL and holds status as one of the most productive pass rushers of all time. Defensive end and outside linebacker, he was an eight-time Pro Bowler, earning six berths as a member of the Vikings and one each as a member of the Atlanta Falcons and San Francisco 49ers. Doman received his Pro Football Hall of Fame in Shryman in 2012. He died of brain cancer. He had a brain tumor that was removed last year. Certainly our thoughts and prayers go out to his family. All right, folks, that's it for us today.

Don't forget to support Roller Martin Unfiltered by going to RollerMartinUnfiltered.com, joining our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar you give goes to support this show. You can use Cash App, PayPal, Square. You can take all of those. Also, yesterday I had the shirt given to me by the Morehouse Band Director.

Today I am repping the hoodie of University of Arkansas Pine Bluff. And as you see, Marching Musical Machine of the Mid-South. And so when I spoke at UAPB a few years ago, they gave me this here. And so that's why I'm rocking this today. So shout out to the folks at UAPB

showing y'all some love today. That's it, folks. I gotta go. I'll see you guys tomorrow. Hey, tomorrow also is Thursday. The U.S. Postal Service, they're doing the stamp unveiling of the stamp for Gwen Ifill

taking place at Metropolitan AME Church. Roland Martin Unfiltered is gonna be there live streaming the entire event that's taking place at Metropolitan AME Church. Roller Martin unfiltered is going to be there. Live streaming the entire event as taking place tomorrow here in Washington DC. 11 AM Eastern. So you want to check us out then on Friday. I'll be in North Carolina A&T where I'll

be speaking at the 66th 60th anniversary of the lunch counter sit-ins of course, started by four North Carolina A&T freshmen. That's gonna be on Friday. And so that's why it's important for you to support what we do, for us to be able to go to the stamp unveiling of a Gwen Ifill, to go to be able to broadcast

the North Carolina A&T anniversary of the Lunch Counter sit-in. Look, other black media ain't doing this. Y'all take y'all time. Right now, you can go to Essence and Ebony and Black Enterprise and Blavity. You can go to all the Griot. You can go to all these black sites out here.

And if it's not entertainment, they are not there covering the sort of stories that we cover every single day. That's why we do what we do. So we know mainstream not covering it. And that's why we're the only black media outlet that's doing this. That's why we need your help

to remain black-owned and independent. So please support what we do by supporting Roland Martin Unfiltered by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. All right, folks, I'll see you tomorrow. Holla! right folks I'll see you tomorrow this is an iHeart podcast