#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 1.31: No new witnesses in Trump trial; Man fined $13M for racist robocalls; Blackface bank robber

Episode Date: February 1, 2020

1.31.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Senate votes against witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial; Members of Congress to vote on whether D.C. should become the 51st state; A Neo-Nazi is being fined $13 Million for targeting Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams with racist robocalls; Journalist Gwen Ifill has been honored with the postal service's Black Heritage Forever Stamp; WTH? A crazy a$$ man robs a bank in blackface; Texas teen who refused to cut his dreadlocks is going to the Oscars. #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 The #RolandMartinUnfiltered is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. It's Friday, January 31st, 2020. Roland Martin is traveling today. I'm Amisha Cross, standing in for guest host Ray Baker, who 31st, 2020. Roland Martin is traveling today. I'm Amisha Cross, standing in for guest host Ray Baker, who's on his way, but stuck in traffic. Here's what's coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Arguments for witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump continue.

We'll take you inside. D.C. statehood will be voted on next week for the first time since 1993. Neo-Nazis are being fined $13 million for targeting Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, with racist robocalls. And journalist Gwen Ifill has been honored with the Postal Service's Black Heritage Forever stamp. And a crazy white man robs a bank in blackface. Plus, the Texas teen who refused to cut his dreadlocks is going to the Oscars. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. And when it breaks, 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 Yeah, yeah It's Uncle Roro, y'all Yeah, yeah It's rolling Martin, yeah Yeah, yeah

Rolling with rolling now Yeah, yeah The Senate voted not to call witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial this afternoon, ushering in the final phase of the proceedings, with a vote to acquit or convict Trump, possibly coming in as late as Wednesday. The vote was 49 to 51. Here's Representative Val Demings with some of the arguments for witnesses. Last Tuesday at the onset of this trial, we moved for Leader McConnell's resolution to be amended to subpoena documents and witnesses from the onset. This body decided to hold the question over. You have now heard opening arguments from both sides. You have seen the evidence that the House was able to collect.

You have heard about the documents and witnesses President Trump blocked from the House's impeachment inquiry. We have vigorously questioned both sides. The President's counsel has urged you to decide this case and render your verdict upon the record assembled by the House. The evidence in the record is sufficient. It is sufficient to convict the president on both articles of impeachment, more than sufficient. But that's simply not how trials work. As any prosecutor or defense lawyer would tell you, when a case goes to trial, both sides call witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury. That happens every day in courtrooms all across America. There is no reason why this impeachment trial should be any different. The common sense practice is born out of precedence. There has never been, never before

been a full Senate impeachment trial without a single witness. In fact, you can see in the slide, in every one of the 15 prior impeachment trials, the Senate has called multiple witnesses. Today we ask you to follow this body's uniform precedents and your common sense. We urge you to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses and documents. Now I'd like to address one question at the offset. There has been much back and forth about whether if the House believes it has sufficient evidence to convict, which we do, why do we need more witnesses and documents? So I'd like to be clear. The evidence presented over the past week and a half strongly supports a vote to convict the president.

The evidence is overwhelming. We have a mounting of evidence. It's direct, it's corroborated by multiple sources, and it proves that the president committed grave impeachable offenses to cheat in the next election. The evidence confirms that if left in office, President Trump will continue to harm our America's national security. He will continue to seek to corrupt the upcoming election and he will undermine he will undermine our democracy all to further his own personal gain but this is a fundamental question that must be addressed is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents, the answer is clearly and

unequivocally no. It was the president's decision to contest the facts, and that is his right but because he has chosen to confess the fact or contest the facts he shall not be heard to complain he shall not be heard to complain that the house wishes to further prove his guilt to answer the questions he would raise he complains that few witnesses spoke directly to the president about his misconduct beyond his damning conversations with Sondland and Mulvaney. Okay, let's hear from others then. The witnesses the House wishes to call directly to the president's own words, his own admissions of guilt, his own confessions of responsibility. If they did not, all the president's men would be on their witness list, not ours.

These witnesses and the documents that their agencies produce tell the full story. And I believe that we are interested in hearing the full story. You should want to hear it. More than that, the American people, we know they want to hear it. Joining me now to talk about what's next is Joseph Williams, senior editor of U.S. News & World Report, and on Skype, Rod Richardson, host of the Disruption Now podcast. So, Joseph, we know how the chips have fallen. We've seen the calls for witnesses. I think that the Democrats, the Senate Democrats, gave a very impassioned plea as to why we need those witnesses called, particularly after the earth-shattering John Bolton comments.

We've seen the responses after the Lev Parnas interview. At the end of the day, the Republicans have said no witnesses. Where does that leave us? That leaves us with a president who's basically left unaccountable. I mean, that's the real problem here. I mean, a lot of people have said that the verdict was precooked, that the cake had already been baked, that we all knew what this was going to happen.

But the problem here is that it repeats a pattern that Trump has had his entire career, not only as a politician, but also as a businessman. You will recall during the campaign, he said some various disparaging things, was never held to account by the Republican Party. He gets into office, does a lot of various disparaging things, was never held to account by the Republican Party. He gets into office, does a lot of other really questionable things, not a word from the

Republican Party. And now he is actively seeking, he sought, foreign interference in the election, no accountability here. So basically they've expanded the power so much that he could probably do whatever he wants and that is a real problem because Trump is not going to be in office forever or we don't know if he's going to be in office forever because quite frankly well exactly quite frankly they have said whatever if he wants to stay they lack the power and the authority to get him out so that's a real problem no and I agree with you on that I want to get Rob Richardson in on this as well again we just saw what happened today a lot of people specifically those on the left kind of felt like this was in the motion. But there were some

holdouts who actually believed that we were going to have some Republican senators actually look towards having these witnesses come forward. How do you feel about the latest news? Well, these holdouts, I don't know what they were looking at or who they were talking to. So look, I mean, like, I don't know these folks that really had this view that Republicans were going to actually come at this in a fair way. Was it a fair trial? No. Did they care about it? No. Do they have any integrity left in the Republican Party? Absolutely not. You have a series of folks that just are just cowards and traitors and don't really care about anything other than trying to preserve power. But they're not looking at the long term. And I want to just reflect on Trump's defense. What they said essentially the other day was if a president has a political interest, then they can do anything.

Absolutely. I think I think that I agree with you that I think that was one of the most interesting points and a very new defense. This was something that came up. We hadn't heard them use this one before. And it was basically that a quid pro quo, if it benefits you personally, is absolutely OK. And I think that that takes us down a very slippery and scary slope as well. Well, what they're saying is like if it's in the interest of politically in the country, it's in the best interest and the person feels like it is, then it's okay to do, which is crazy because Trump, you can see the argument being, okay, we're in a war or something that I need to stay president for another term or yeah, I lost, but it doesn't matter because it's in my best political interest.

So let me stay. It is an absolutely crazy argument. It's clearly that either one or two things are happening. Either we're seeing the end of the Republican Party, which I hope that's what's happening, or we're seeing the end of America as a democracy and we're just going to something else. And that really depends upon what happens next because clearly we can't depend on the Senate to actually stand up. Well, I would vote for end of the Republican Party a little bit more than end of the Republic. Although it's really easy to see from here if you squint, right, the end of democracy.

The point is that we've been here before, right? FDR in the late 30s was trying to pack the courts, and the Republican Party rose up and said, hey, not fair. And even some Democrats kind of grumbled, you're a little edgy, a little towards dictatorship. But I would argue that we've reached beyond that point in the sense that we have a Republican party that, regardless of what this president has done, is not willing to push back at all. That's exactly right. I mean, the point is that in FDR's case, the institutions held him back. The House, the Senate, the judiciary all said, you can't really do that. Now we have the House

pushing in one direction. The Senate, which is the final arbiter here, saying, no, you can't really do that. Now we have the House pushing in one direction. The Senate, which is the final arbiter here, is saying, no, we think he can do that. And we know that the courts have pretty much been packed in his favor because all along in each step of the way, that's what it's been all about. And the reason why Mitch McConnell has decided to engineer a rapid acquittal is so he can get back to the assembly line of producing these judges that get lifetime appointments on the federal court and that do not have any accountability whatsoever and can execute their voter voter ID laws that can execute their their their various assent schemes to try to constrict federal power in the hands of just one party. And Rob, we already see that, you know, this president is fast-tracking to his own vindication. How do you think this affects the 2020 election? Well, I'm going to get to that, but I'll actually want to make, as I'm a history junkie, I want to reference the FDR mention that was made there. I think it's a little bit different. We have to make sure we keep that in mind because during FDR's time, there was an alliance between

Republicans, conservative Republicans and conservative Dixiecrats who both did not like FDR. We have nothing of the sort right now. We have a Republican Party that is completely lockstep in doing whatever this president says. So I think we're at a much more dangerous ground. Also, we had a Democratic president that was willing to push the edges. And because he did that, he actually got more things accomplished that people were nervous about what he might do. But and he also had four terms. So we look, if we're talking about some comparisons, we don't want to be very careful about that. So what this is going to do with 2020, it's really hard to say. I used to have a pretty good indication about where the country was going ever since the

president, occupant of the White House has been in in there he's really kind of fogged things so it really depends on a few things one if there's massive voter turnout two if there's a reaction to uh to people that feel like okay we don't have any accountability in the senate we don't have any accountability with the president we need to bring things back to normal if that's the narrative and if that's enough which i'm not sure if it is uh that can move Trump out of office. But you also have a strong economy. There's just a whole bunch of unknowns. With Trump, nothing can follow conventional wisdom. We're going to see him actually, I think, cheat and do things we haven't seen before. So I'm not sure if Democrats are prepared for that fight. I think they go along of saying, oh, well, let's just do everything right.

Let's just make sure the American people know how logical we are and they're going to follow us. And I think that's a failed strategy. So I don't know. But see, here's the thing. I mean, if you were talking about the 2020 election and whether or not this is going to end, that clearly it will. I mean, not the least of which because I think Rob's made a point that this party is not necessarily equipped to fight asymmetrical warfare against this guy. Number two, is it really going to be a fair election?

I mean, we don't know. He already has solicited foreign interference in his previous win. He probably is going to do it again. He's already talked about China even before the impeachment trial got started. He put a shout out to China. If you all want to hack us, we need some information on the Democrats, so have at it. And basically he's admitted to everything, which is one of the things that really drives me up the wall about this is because we have a party that's dedicated to power and will not will not acknowledge

the rule of law. Absolutely. But if you're somebody who is it's the game is rigged for you, you're someone who knows that your party is not going to stand against you, regardless of the damage that it will do to democracy. At the end of the day, it has basically given him a blank check to do whatever he wants. And I think that, you know, moving into this next phase, because everybody knows what's going to happen with impeachment here on out. This may, in fact, embolden him a lot more. Him, his base is going to make it harder for Democrats. We're you know, we're watching this unfold before our eyes, and I don't necessarily think that there is enough or that we've heard enough that can sway some of those voters.

Well, maybe and maybe not. I mean, I think that the Republican voters are locked in. There's no doubt about that. The middle, there's probably some maneuverability there, but the two things you've got to remember is, number one, he will cheat. You're absolutely right. This probably is going to happen. He's already put a call out. Number two, the Electoral

College is not necessarily in Democrats' favor because that's how the game got won last time. Not because he won more votes. He didn't. But because he had the numbers vis-a-vis the system that allowed him to claim a win, even though it was far from a mandate. Yeah, I actually think to add to that point, I don't think there's a lot of undecided voters. I think the numbers, the undecided voters are very, very, very, very small. People know who this president is. They know where he stands. And I don't think there's a lot of people that can be moved. So the question is, the persuadable voters are those who can get their voters out. And if Democrats can make a case to make sure enough voters participate and they can make sure that there's not enough cheating.

They'll win. Trump is going to motivate his people. They're going to be motivated. He hasn't lost any votes. I don't think he's gained any, but his people are going to come out, and Democrats better be prepared for that. Well, thanks, guys, and there's a lot more to come on impeachment. Members of Congress will soon vote on whether D.C. should become the 51st state for the first time since 1993. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mayor Muriel Bowser, and Council Chairman Phil

Middleton were flanked by House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carol Maloney yesterday for the announcement. CAROL MALONEY, D.C. We announced today that on February the 11th, the House Oversight and Reform Committee will mark up and vote to send to the floor H.R. 51 to give the residents of the District of Columbia equal representation with the states in both houses of Congress and to ensure that Congress can never again interfere into the governing affairs of the district or dictate or change the district's local laws. Since joining the House of Representatives in 1991

as D.C.'s largest non-voting representative, Norton has introduced statehood legislation every legislative term. The bill is expected to be voted through committee and make it onto the House floor. Joseph, how do you feel about this? Statehood, it seems like we've been arguing this now for decades. Does it have a better chance in 2020 than we've seen before? And what are some of the factors you think would help to propel it forward? It's hard to see it from here. I mean, maybe if you squint, I think that D.C. has a good shot at statehood.

The factors are, you know, you've got a Democratic Congress. Every presidential candidate has called for, every Democratic presidential candidate has called for this. But there's a lot of unknowns there, too. I mean, at every turn, when the wind seemed favorable, some Republican legislature has come up with a maneuverability bill that has blocked it. D.C. has a good chance. Will it happen? It depends. That's all I got for that. I mean, and I think it's deserved because we pay the largest proportion in taxes. We have zero representation. The seat of government is here. And all the laws and governance of D.C. comes through a Congress which has not been accountable to the people of Washington. Absolutely. And I have the same question for you, Rob. What are some of

the factors that you think could propel this forward? And why is now the time? Do you think, first off, that now is the time for D.C. statehood? And what do you think are some of the things that could cause this to actually become a reality for the people who've been fighting for so long? Well, I actually think this is this shouldn't be a partisan issue, but we know it is because when it passes, people see, OK, these are going to be more Democratic representatives. They're going to be more. They're going to be two Democratic senators. It shouldn't be that. It should be about fairness. So I think the real fault in this, though, is that Republicans play chess and Democrats play checkers. So this would be something that should be a long term investment.

No, it's not going to pass in 2020. But you start playing the seed. You figure out strategies to get this to be popular. You know, a lot of the ideas that people accept as mainstream right now, the Republican Party has been working on for 50 years. Democrats don't think about things that way. So I actually think we should be doing this because, A, it's the right thing to do. You're going to have close to a million people at some point, I think about 2045, that are not going to be able to participate in hardly any elections, yet they're going to pay lots of taxes. And they deserve representation. They're larger than multiple states, if you think

about it like that. We also have this emerging issue, which is another issue with the Electoral College. About 80 percent of people in the United States are going to live in cities. But the Electoral College is going to be such that a few states with a few amount of people are going to have an oversized power. So we're going to have another type of inequality going on within our within the United States that's going to challenge this country. And I think it's going to if we don't figure out a way to solve, people are going to feel like they're not represented. And if you don't feel like that you're represented, then your whole government falls apart. And Joseph, the landscape of D.C. has changed dramatically since the 90s. How do you think that that would affect D.C. pursuing statehood? Well, it's helped. D.C. has gotten more diverse.

It's one of the more diverse cities. Usually, you know, back in the 70s, it was Chocolate City for a good reason. I mean, 55, 60 percent of the population was African-American. Now it's just like chocolate milk. Exactly. It's like Cafe au lait, basically. And so that brings with it some power. I mean, because you've got economic power, and because you've got economic power, the political interests are more likely to listen to you. The problem is, on a national level, it's still perceived as chocolate city. And that's part of the issue.

I think it might have been 10, 12 years ago, there was a proposal on the table that seemed highly rational. Utah, another low-population, large state, would get two additional delegates if D.C. gets statehood. Seemed like a pretty good broker. The Republicans get something. The Republicans get something. The Democrats get something. It got nixed at the last minute, mainly because the white Republican Congress, I think it was a Republican majority of Congress at that point,

was like, no dice. We're simply not going to let this black state into the union. So I think the racial dynamics and history dynamics have a lot to do with it here. Absolutely. And are there any things that you feel, Rob, could actually help to get more people, more people not only in D.C. but also outside of D.C. to rally around this cause? I do. I do.

I think you've got to have a strategy long term and think about how you message this. We now have the technology to target people. It's part of what I do, right? You can have that. You can have companies target people to make them understand why this is not only unfair, but it's more American to have it this way. And you figure out how to target people from different populations. You have a long-term plan. It'll be like a 10-year plan. But instead of just saying, we need statehood, we need statehood, and just hope that people understand it,

there needs to be some investment long-term. There needs to be some investment long term. There needs to be a communication strategy and it should be implemented, funded because it's worth it. I think Democrats get caught up in presidential and federal elections. Very important, but it's very short term thinking. In order to really address things, we need some fundamental structural changes. This is one example of many that folks have to invest in the long run and just can't just try to say, OK, we just need to focus on who's running for president or who's running for federal office. There's a lot of structural things that need to be looked at in order to have a more substantial impact. And with that, we're going to take a short break and we'll be right back. I love public service. I love knowing that everybody can be helped by me. My name is Alonzo Thornton, and I'm a psychiatric nurse, too, for the Department of Aging and Disability in Nevada.

We service individuals with intellectual disabilities, so we have to assist them all day, 24 hours a day. There's an individual, a young lady, who when she first came in, she was scared. She was really apprehensive. And slowly you build a relationship. Through my interactions with her, daily interactions, she yells my name out when I walk into the room. Alonzo! Alonzo! It's just a happy, joyous thing. And it just makes me, I mean, I'm giggling and I'm laughing when I leave her room. And that's one of the best feelings that I have.

Alonzo is amazing with the individuals. He goes above and beyond, no matter what it is. I'm from three generations of Alonzo Thorntons who joined the Army. My grandfather was in World War II. I joined the Army in 1984 as a combat medic. And in the military, we had people who watched our back. It was a system where I would watch your back, you would watch mine.

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

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

Hi, I'm Ray Baker. I'm guest host for Roland Martin This Today. But unfortunately, I was stuck in traffic. You would be amazed how much traffic there is on 295 coming from Baltimore. Before we get started with the rest of the show, I want to thank Amisha for her fantastic job sitting in the seat. She is a strategist, an analyst, and apparently also a host. But as in the spirit of Roland,

we gotta continue to bring the funk. And in that vein, let me tell you all about the neo-Nazi podcaster Scott Rose of Idaho, who's being fined $12.9 million for harassing Andrew Gillum supporters with racist robocalls during his 2018 Florida gubernatorial campaign. Now, in November of 2018,

he tried to interfere in another election by making 583 robocalls, denouncing Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. The racist and anti-Semitic, those things always seem to go hand in hand, calls falsely claimed to be from, get this, Oprah Winfrey. Here's another example of the kind of hatred he exposed people to. The body of 20-year-old Molly Tibbetts was found in a cornfield after she was stabbed to death

by an invader from Mexico, a biological hybrid of white and his savage Aztec ancestors who also killed the Nais during their mass human sacrifices on top of pyramids they didn't build. Some relatives of Molly Tibbets are implying that despite having been murdered by a non-white savage intruder, she would still support the invasion of America by a brown horde currently at a staggering 58 million. But you know in your heart, they are

wrong. If after her life has now been brutally stolen from her, she could be brought back to life for just one moment and asked, what do you think now? Molly Tibbetts would say, kill them all. Well, we don't have to kill them all, but we do have to deport them all. The Aztec hybrids known as mestizos are low IQ, bottom feeding savages, and is why the countries they infest are crime ridden failures. That's now America's fate too, unless we re-found America as whites only and get rid of them now, every last one. This message paid for by theroadtopower.com. I imagine we all know what time that is.

And it's amazing that that person would say that others are low IQ as he says we need to refound America. But I'm not here to opine. We have some analysts that you've already heard from and you'll hear more from. Joining me, Joseph Williams, again, senior editor of U.S. News and World Report. Amisha Cross, you know her as a host extraordinaire, but she's also a political analyst and Democratic strategist. And our brother on Skype is Rob Richardson, host of the Disruption Now podcast. Rob, hello to you. I just got in the studio, so I wanted to make sure I spoke to you. Amisha, I want to start with you because you were doing such a great job of hearing everyone else's opinions.

But I want your opinion on this. How do so many Americans, particularly white Americans, particularly white racist Americans, think that this is still an okay way to exist with other human beings here in 2020? I think because even though, you know, we've had the civil rights movement, we've tried to, or at least some people thought we were in a post-racial society. We never actually have been, and it's hard to believe, and I personally don't believe that we'll get there. What we do have is a president that continues to stoke the flames of hate. And when you do that, you have these people that were usually in their own little echo chambers with friends and people who think like them, who are afraid to go out and make these statements publicly. Right now, you have an emboldened populace that is racist, xenophobic, as they happen to be, they feel free to shed all of this information out here

for everybody to share far and wide. Listening to that, it was not only extremely disruptive, crazy in many ways, but also just the vitriol that was within it. I would be afraid to even be in the same room with somebody who thought and held those types of ideals because it is not a large leap to go from that type of thinking to extreme violent activity. Rob, I want to go to you because you're a podcaster, even using the name Disruption Now, and Amisha alluded to disrupting just now,

but is the growth in technology, the growth in digital communication, is that aiding in bringing these types of folks who may have been in the margins or the shadows out to a more public sphere? Oh, there's no question about that. And there's a lot of benefits to the digital age, obviously. But it certainly amplifies the worst pre-existing conditions of humans, the grandiosity, racism, the hate. You have a medium where you have really no filters. You can just say or speak to whoever you want to. Not only that, of course, you can micro-target your communities and you can really get your worldview, no matter how warped, reinforced day in and day out. So you got this idiot, you got this guy who's out there doing this every day and he did this

and he's stupid. He's not the person I'm worried about. He's stupid. He's clear. He's overt. I mean, I'm worried about him. I wouldn't be in a room next to him. You know, I might have to punch him or something. I shouldn't punch him. We shouldn't say that. I would be whatever. I would be on guard. But let me just say this. He's the person you shouldn't worry about because I don't hear much of a difference between his language and the president and the president of the United States. As Amisha referenced, he's emboldening people like that. But my worry is not about those people. It's about the cognitive dissidence to all the other people

who are saying this is acceptable. Because how many votes did Donald Trump get and say essentially that same type of language? That makes me nervous in terms of having a country that is fully and not only not rejecting this, they're fully embracing it. And we know Donald Trump has not hidden from this, hasn't gone anywhere. So that's what we have to worry about.

And final point on this, when you look at the digital strategy and what's really going on, there's going to be a sophisticated way to do this. We know if you read the Mueller report, it was a boring 400-page report. I read it. And there's only one line I want you to focus on. I want you to focus on what Russia did in targeting racial resentment and targeting black people. Here's what they did very, very simply. One, they paid black people to take martial arts. Think about this for a minute. And then they would only pay them when they would post those pictures of martial artists.

And then they would send those pictures to insecure white people to say these black people are coming after you. That's one. The other side of that is they dissuaded black voters by going after Hillary Clinton. And then Democrats and everybody are surprised because they know they didn't really do any digital strategy and they spent all their money on TV while Trump and the Republicans micro-targeted their community. So yes, it's a really big concern. I don't think people have really paid enough attention to that. And in a way, we're just reinforcing our own realities. And people are, no matter, people are believing things, no matter how crazy, no matter how outlandish.

But this isn't new. The whole trope of savage, racist, savage, rapist brutality is something that has been used for black and brown people for generations. Absolutely. In this country. I think that

obviously, you know, this president has stoked the flames of hate, but we can't act like just in that last election, these people suddenly emerged. This is something that we've seen redone over and over again in a different way. Now we have digital, you know, a digital expansion of access to where it's going through hundreds of thousands of people at once. But this is something that has been utilized across this country for a very long time. It sounds like, to your point, it's a new medium with old tools. Joseph, in the last segment, Rob pointed to something where he said Democrats think large, federal elections, who's Congress, who's running for president. But a lot of the winning is done in the smaller elections, in both down-ballot elections,

judge elections, and even in our state houses. But here we've seen, and we know from what happened in Georgia when the then Secretary of State, who's now the governor there, kicked off nearly 70,000 eligible voters and overwhelmingly likely Democrat. We know about the infiltrations in Florida where so many eligible voters who are likely Democrats weren't able to vote. We see Democrats are targeting state houses. But here and again,

we're seeing that the Republican adversaries are playing in ways not just are politics or dirty business, but are beyond the pale. Is there any hope if Democrats or anyone else who wants to oppose Democrats are unwilling to play at that level? Well, that's a really interesting question, and I'm not sure we have an answer for that just yet. I mean, number one, it's asymmetric warfare, and conventional armies always do poorly against guerrilla fighters, and these guys aren't afraid to break the rules. This tape sounded really amateurish, but who knows how effective it might have been. Who knows how many votes it might have siphoned off from legit people who wanted to vote for Stacey Abrams or from Andrew Gillum, and we know that in Abrams'

race, the margin of victory was very, very narrow. And that's with a guy who is running the election, also running for the office. I mean, it's just insane. And what's legal now and what's acceptable now is just mind blowing. The second thing that comes to mind is they caught him, the FEC, it might have been the FEC or whatever commercial entity, federal entity that monitored these sorts of things, caught him, levied a hefty fine. And yet the president of the United States, who did far worse, who openly solicited government interference from a foreign country, is exonerated by the party.

That's because this guy is kind of a low, he's a bottom feeder, and it's easy to squash those people. We have a president who literally said the exact same thing when it came to calling Mexican immigrants rapists. It came out of his mouth. In his opening statement, when he announced that he was running. When he was running on the campaign trail in the State of the Union, at any given point when he was given a public position to make the comments, he would make them, and he's been making them for years now.

Right. And I would say as another point to actually bring up what you just said, my issue is that Democrats, yes, they went after the state house in that, but like, this was, this was really predictable. And so like thinking about how Stacey Abrams is right now, she's actually funding this. She has a long-term plan. That's what Democrats need to be doing. Look, Republicans are going to cheat. We don't have to cheat to win, but we do have to fight. And I think there's a, there, there's a level of, of folks that are uncomfortable with actually to fight. And I think there's a level of folks that are uncomfortable with actually engaging in conflict. I think that's the issue. You don't have to break

the rules, but you do have to be willing to fight. I think that uncomfortability comes from the fact that there are Democrats who know that within our very own party, there are people that believe the exact same thing. And it's very hard to be that person who is, I'm this fighter and I'm going to drive this through, when you know that some of the same people who smile in your face, who fundraise in your community, who people vote for every day and stand by, hold these exact same views. And that's why Democrats continue to lose elections. Joseph, go ahead. But here's the problem, though. I mean, one of the things that I keep thinking about is judges, right? If we talk about fighting, if we talk about trying to push back against some

of these things through legal means and through conventional means, this is what this administration has been all about. This is why McConnell has stuck by him. This is why so many Republicans who were never Trumpers all of a sudden have flipped, is because they are not just targeting local elections, which they did. That's fine. They're targeting federal judgeships, lifetime judgeships, judgeships that determine election boundaries, judgeships, lifetime judgeships, judgeships that determine election boundaries, judges that determine precincts, judges that determine who wins and who doesn't. The same court packing you said in the last segment about FDR. That's exactly right. It's kind of a through line here because yes, this guy got caught and he got away with a lot

of stuff and he got away with some stuff that was beyond the pale that is now okay. But the problem is if you are the Democratic Party and you don't want to go down that road, and yes, to your point, there are very many people who say yes, I guess I agree with that, but I'm not going to say that openly because that's poor taste, right? Then what are the means of fighting back? What is the means of fighting back if they've got the courts, if the legislatures are changing the rules, and if the federal government is not doing anything through the Justice Department. Rob, let me ask you this, and it's something you alluded to a bit in the Mueller report,

and so I just want to push the conversation forward. Sure. One of the things that many, on the particular the black left, were skeptical about the Russian report was the Russians didn't have to go in and change vote totals. They merely had display on the fears and racial resentments that already existed. What does it mean that white Americans still today, to Amisha's point, be it Democrat or Republican, I'm not making this as a partisan question. This is an

American question. What does it mean that white Americans just still don't like black people? So let me go to, I'm going to answer that question. I want to go back to what was talked about with judges, because I'm going to break the 11th commandment here. And I have great respect for Barack Obama, voted for him, worked for him, raised tons of money for him. But I want I want to take everybody back in time because I think it was Jason who said this. Like, yes, they have a strategy, because as I said before, you know, Republicans play chess. Democrats play checkers. We'll go back in time and talk about Barack Obama and how he had a Supreme Court pick that didn't even get a vote.

Now, replace him with George W. Bush, any Republican, a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House. Had they done that, what do you think they would have done? They would have raised all holy hell. There would have been all types of strategy, all types of fight. And we went out without a whimper. I don't remember much strategy or pushback at all. And that was a big deal. That one vote has literally changed the course of probably the next 20 or 30 years of legal laws and rights that we're going to have in this country. It was a huge deal to not get that pick. But what does that pushback look like, though? That's a good question. What does that pushback look like? No, so I'm going to tell you what a pushback looks like.

First of all, speaking up, thinking about a strategy that you would have, like instead of getting a Marilyn, a Garland, whatever his name is. Marilyn Garland, yeah. Marilyn Garland, yes, right? Somebody who you think is going to be the safest pick and pacify people that you cannot pacify, the people that have been denying you from the beginning. Why don't you go ahead and get a black woman

that might actually fire people up to be the first African-American woman and then have a strategy for engaging your base, getting people really fired up and making this mainstream instead of not doing anything, maybe even trying to push the boundaries, maybe even try to appoint them anyway. Don't not do anything. That's not a good strategy to me to just say, well, hopefully we're going to win the next election. Republicans would never do that. I mean, the point is actually have a strategy to engage and fight. And I'm just getting tired of just saying, OK, well, we can't do anything. And then let's just hope that Americans see that we're fair. No, they want to see fighters. People respect folks that have conviction. That's a great point. And to Rob's point, I think a little bit about when the North Carolina GOP

headquarters burned and there were so many Democrats who contributed so much money to help rebuild that because folks were offering the rhetoric of country above party and we all want America. And the very first initiative that the North Carolina GOP did then right after was voter suppression, specifically targeting black and overwhelmingly Democratic communities. But Amisha, I did ask Rob a question, and Rob acknowledged it, but he had a point he wanted to make about the judge, and that was fair. But I'm not asking you to speak for or defend white people. But I am curious why in 2020,

merely suggesting that there may be some Mexican sisters and brothers who may be your neighbor, merely suggesting that black Americans might arm themselves or learn kung fu or may learn self-defense tactics, merely suggesting the black presence exists and will be in someone's space is enough to drive serious wedges between Americans. What does that say about Americans and white Americans specifically? It says about white Americans what it always has. This nation was founded upon a hierarchical system, and that hierarchical system kept black and brown people at the bottom. It kept black people as subhuman

entirely. I don't think that we have grown too far past that. And when white America, by and large, starts to feel threatened, what we're seeing is the expansion of the brown race across this country. When they start to feel threatened, when they feel as though they actually have to compete for things, when they feel as though at this point that they may be outnumbered, that, you know, brown people are going to start voting in larger number, they're going to start participating in larger number. That threatens the very hierarchy and the esteem that they have for so long reinforced across this country. And I think that they will do almost anything to make sure that they don't move their place.

Joseph, I'm going to give you the last word on this. You asked a good question and we're still kind of trying to search for an answer. We see and understand Republicans are playing outside the lines by so much. But Democrats, to Rob's point, do at least have to fight. But what does fighting look like? Fighting looks like what's been going on right now. But you can't really fight effectively unless you win the elections. I mean, fighting back looks like what's been going on right now, but you can't really fight effectively unless you win the elections. I mean, fighting back looks like... Forgive me, I do want to hear from you.

Sure. But if the thing that the Republicans are doing is contaminating those same elections that you're saying we must win, how does one engage? It engages... There are pushes to change the Electoral College. There's pushes to change representation.

There's pushes to lock in gerrymandering for a certain period. There's pushing to make sure that every person is counted so that the census is accurate. It means going to court when you know you can win. It means having a public strategy when you know you can't win to turn public opinion. It means doing being loud, sometimes being wrong, but not caring about being loud and wrong. As long as you're trying to make an objective point and get your your side in an advantage. I think Rob made the point about the D.C. statehood that maybe it won't come to fruition in 2020. But you lay the groundwork so it will become a thing later on in 2010. Medicare for all and single payer solution advocates were pushing and pushing,

and it sounded so far-fetched. Here we are in 2020, and that thing pulls really strong. Rob, hold on one second. I've got to take a break. But when we come back, we'll have way more here on Roland Martin Unfiltered. 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. It's 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. RolandMartinUniltered.com. On Monday, February 3rd, and Tuesday, February 4th, the National Leadership Conference

is issuing a call to action. Next year will be a critical year for the nation and a year of existential threats for the African-American community, for the potential continuation of devastating Trump administration policies, to a census cynically designed to undercut our community, to national, state, and local elections.

The African-American community needs to be organized and assert the full force and power of our communities, including electing people who will champion our interests. The conference will be called with a sense of urgency that concludes with a specific action plan for African American leaders to take back to their communities. During the early years of the CBC, the caucus periodically convened African American leaders from around the nation to tackle different issues or respond to various crises. As the nation, and in particular our

community, is experiencing the most hostile administration since the 1950s, the time is right again for the CBC to step up and convene leaders from around the nation. The goals are to initiate a CBC-led national call to action to mobilize African-American participation in the 2020 census, voting rights, and the CBC legislative agenda

to promote and support other organizational efforts affecting the African-American populations like labor, students, local elected officials, and faith communities. The Future of Black America, a call to action. A two-day conference will be held at the nation's capital and will include plenary sessions and workshops covering key issues. The CBC will take the lead in moderating and facilitating, but leaders from around the nation will be invited to present the issues, strategies, and work from various communities. The conference will begin with an off-site political session

and a full day of plenaries and workshops. For more information, go to cbc.house.gov backslash 2020summit. Again, cbc.house.gov backslash 2020 summit. No charcoal grills are allowed. I'm white. I got you, girl. Illegally selling water without a permit. On my property. Whoa!

Hey! You don't live here. I'm uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable. You can tell the kind of folks like Scott Rose don't watch this show because they would take issue with something the segment called crazy ass white people. However, we do know that a manhunt is on for a racist white suspect who held up a bank in Maryland while disguised in blackface. Yes, you heard that correctly. The robbery occurred at PNC Bank in Perryville, Maryland, about 43 miles northeast of Baltimore, just below Pennsylvania. The teller who was robbed initially described the robber as black. Again, white people. Look

at the picture. That's clearly not a black person. But after investigators reviewed security footage, they noticed the crook's white skin between his right gloved hand and jacket sleeved. Thankfully, no one was injured in the heist. Joseph. Joseph, you write for U.S. World News Report. That means you've had some colleagues who may not be black once or twice. A few, yeah. And I'm not going to designate you ambassador of white people.

No, that would be an honorific I would not happily decline. But as the black community's emissary into that nation, what are folks doing? You asked the question last segment, right, why do they still hate us? That's why, because it's easy to blame shit, sorry, it's easy to blame things on African-Americans. It's easy to, you know, you have the image in your mind, it was a black suspect. The guy clearly is white. And a lot of white people, I think there was a statistic that I remember some years ago that each, every black person probably has at least two white friends. And the majority of white people don't even have a friend of another race.

So it's easy to disconnect and become the other, hence a white woman, white teller presumably, looks at this, that's a black guy, until she sees the patch of skin between his wrist, oh wait a minute. And white men have always been too willing to blame stuff, and Susan Smith, the Boston, you know there was a case in Boston where, you could go on and on.

Yeah, yeah, Misha, we see this happen, right? And the thing is, robbers and criminals know, you know what, if I pretend to be black, it'll work. And that seems to be very consistent with white Americans because even if we think back to the founding, then when they dumped the tea in the Boston Harbor, they didn't even have the audacity to defiantly do it themselves. They dressed as our indigenous sisters and brothers to do it.

It's frustrating, confounding. I would laugh if it wasn't such a weird situation. At the end of the day, the part that disturbs me the most about that video is that the teller actually said that it was a black man. Anybody watching this knows that this was somebody in blackface. Nothing about that man was black. Even if you didn't see the space between his glove and his wrist, nothing about this was black. So I think that that was disturbing in and of itself, but also the intensity that a lot of people across white America have to always place criminality on black individuals. And I think that this speaks more to that than anything else, because it is easier to swallow that a black man could do something like this for them than it is for the expectation that it could happen from somebody who looks just like

you rob i'm gonna come to you before this story came out though we saw just recently that maryland was named if not the but one of the least racist states in the union i suppose that means that means stevie wander is the most well-seeing person in a particular room of those who aren't able to see. However, I'm curious, though, for folks who see Maryland and see this and they think, wait, didn't Maryland fight on the union side? Doesn't Baltimore have an overwhelming black population? Don't they always go Democrat? What does that tell us about some of these labels that we often associate with race? Yeah, so this is just a clear example, particularly looking at the teller's response, the teller's first statement that, oh, this was a black man, that no one can be colorblind. I hate

the term when people say that I'm colorblind because, A, well, you're not, clearly. And if you are colorblind, what that means is you just don't see us. You don't see our experience, but you do see a color because he said he was black. He's not black. He just saw black and just assumed that it was black because in our head, it's subconsciously there. You know, the construct of racism is so ingrained in the DNA that it's going to take, it's going to take, I think it's going to take centuries to really get it out of us if we can get it out of us. And we have to continue to work to make sure that we do that. So just because you vote Democrat, just because you voted for Barack Obama, whatever, just because you have a black friend, you might have two black friends.

You are still susceptible to being racist. And that includes black people, too. We're often harder on black people than even white people are. I enjoy this. When I see it. I think about that person pretending to be a black person. I think about the memes that I see on Twitter, where it has the actor from Boardwalk Empire, whose name is escaping me right now. He has a skateboard on his shoulder. Hello, fellow. Hello, fellow kids. Let's all go hang out and do teenage

things. Fellow teenagers. Yes, I am a black man. Well, it's interesting. You asked about what this says about the state of Maryland, how liberal it is. I mean, Perryville is about 20 miles from where my parents live in Hartford County. Hartford County used to be a sundown area. I mean, it is not. I mean, Maryland has a reputation, but there are people who are living on the eastern shore, including my father, who's from there. They will tell you it is just as bad as Alabama in some places. And we have to learn to stop separating racism by whether it's liberal or conservative.

At the end of the day, racism knows no political party. You can be in a city that is as liberal as New York City. You could be in Chicago, where I'm from. And at the end of the day, there are white people who voted for President Obama twice who don't want little black children going to school with theirs. So I think that we have to think beyond the political parties and think about where we are as a nation

when it comes to our race issues. And in both of those cities you just mentioned, ask the black people if the police are as liberal as we think. We've got to take another break and we'll be right back with more Roland Martin Unfiltered. You want to check out Roland Martin Unfiltered?

YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. That's Roland Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roland Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel.

That's YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. Be sure to 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? Join our newest online course and mastermind group, How Successful People Think. She will be your guide as you learn timeless leadership principles

to apply to daily living. Now, the offer expires February 28th of this year, 2020. So be sure to register for and start on the online course today. That's going to be at www.livetolead.com slash Leesburg.

www.livetolead.com slash Leesburg. It's right here. In other news, finally, guys, Rob, get ready. I've got good news. Texas team DeAndre Arnold, who was suspended because he refused to cut his locks, is going to the Oscars. The invitation comes from Matthew Cherry, the creator of the Oscar-nominated short film Hair Love, along with former NBA player Dwayne Wade and his wife, actress Gabrielle Union, who are producers on the animated film. Here's how they let him know.

Hey, DeAndre, I'm Gabrielle Union, and I am one of the producers of the Oscar-nominated animated short film Hair Love. And when we heard about this amazing story of a young Black father with long, beautiful locks just trying to figure out how to do his daughter's hair, we knew that we had to support any way we could. We had to get involved any way we could. The same way as when we heard about your story and you just wanting to wear your hair

the way you want at school and all the scrutiny that you faced and how unwavering you have been in standing up for yourself. We also knew that we had to get involved. What's up, DeAndre, man? This is DeWayne Wade. My wife, Gabrielle, said we are big fans.

We follow you. We love the way that you carry yourself. And we wanted to do something special for you. So you and your family can get ready to come out to LA. We're going to cover all travel, all hotel. You and your mother sandy are the official guests of the oscar nominated team behind hair love at the 2020 academy of boys uh this sunday man so get ready you're going to the oscars bud hey deandre this is matthew we're so excited for you to be our

guest at the oscars next week and because we don't want you to worry about what you're going to be looking like on the red carpet, our partners at Dove are going to be giving you and your mother the red carpet treatment and take care of your Oscar tickets, plus provide full wardrobe and glam for the big night. DeAndre, you're such a good kid, and we've all been so inspired by your story, and this is the very least we can do to thank you

for standing up for yourself and for your right to wear your natural hair at school. We look forward to seeing you next weekend, and keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing you next weekend and keep up the good work. I look forward to meeting you. Things just keep getting better for DeAndre. He's also going to get $20,000 from Ellen DeGeneres and Alicia Keys

toward his college education. Won't folks learn racism doesn't win? Furthermore, in the historic black church where she worshipped, the late journalist Gwen Ifill was remembered with a new black heritage stamp in a ceremony featuring dignitaries of the church, politics, and journalism. Ifill was the first African-American and first woman to moderate a major television news analysis show.

She died tragically young at the age of 61 in 2016 after a cancer diagnosis. She was the moderator and managing editor of Washington Week and a senior political correspondent for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. She became co-anchor of the PBS NewsHour and part of the first all-female team to anchor a national nightly news program. The honor is more than well-deserved. Well, that concludes today's edition of Roland Martin Unfiltered. Just want to give a quick shout-out to our brothers and sisters from Tuskegee University,

home of Lionel Richie, home of Amelia Boynton, and so many other brilliant, beautiful black scholars. We love the fertile soil of Alabama, providing education for our folks down there. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for all the panelists. And thank you for Amisha again for sitting in this host seat for me when I was stuck in traffic. She did a fantastic job.

Be sure to tune in on Monday at 6 when Roland will be right here back into the studio. Until then, in parting, let us remember the words of the Yoruba proverb, that if we stand tall, it is because we stand on the backs of those who came before us. And Roland, with two sigmas up here, one time for you, good brother. Blue fire.

Until then, enjoy your weekend. this is an iHeart podcast