#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 1.8 RMU: Iran's counterattack; Trump backs down; Bloomberg's imperial campaign; Buttigieg's Black ad

Episode Date: January 16, 2020

1.8.20: NFL and MLB has a Black problem; Iran launches a counterattack and Trump backs down; Democrats say Bloomberg is running an imperial campaign. - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastin. And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun?

Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast.

Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We asked parents who adopted teens to share their journey. We just kind of knew from the beginning that we were family. They showcased a sense of love that I never had before. I mean, he's not only my parent, like he's like my best friend.

At the end of the day, it's all been worth it. I wouldn't change a thing about our lives. Learn about adopting a teen from foster care. Visit AdoptUSKids.org to learn more. Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ad Council. Today is Wednesday, January 8th, 2020. Coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered, yo, Keystone Cops in the White House. Republican Senator Mike Lee goes off on the Trump administration after what he described the worst military briefing he's received

since being in the United States Senate. Hashtag Mike, we tried to tell you. Also, Iran launches a counterattack and Donald Trump comes out and talks about it and then blames Obama for it. Really. Democrats are accusing Mike Bloomberg of running an imperial campaign

because he's using his own money and refuses to take donations. Huh, how's that going, Mike? Also, folks, we'll talk about, of course, more conversation about what's happening in professional sports when it comes to black managers. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. To news, to politics With entertainment just for kicks He's rolling Yeah, yeah

It's Uncle Roro, y'all Yeah, yeah It's Roland Martin Yeah, yeah Rolling with Roland now Yeah, yeah He's funky, he's fresh He's real the best

You know he's Roland Martin Now He's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best You know he's rolling, Martin Martin All right, folks, Iran launched missile strikes late Tuesday against two Iraqi military bases that house U.S. forces in retaliation for the airstrike that killed Iranian Major General last week. Now, there has been no indication from U.S. officials of any American casualties from the strike. Today in a news conference, Donald Trump

seemed to seek a de-escalation, saying Tehran appears to be standing down. Okay. Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would vote on a war powers resolution tomorrow that would limit President Trump's military actions regarding Iran. And what's quite interesting about this, of course, is that in his speech, Donald Trump chose to, first of all, use the opportunity to lie about the Iranian nuclear deal, then chose to blame the black guy for the problems today, and then tout how great the economy is. It was all over the place.

And so, y'all, so listen to this if you really, really want to understand the lack of a brain of the person in the old office. In recent months alone, Iran has seized ships in international waters, fired an unprovoked strike on Saudi Arabia, and shot down two U.S. drones. Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013. And they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying thank you to the United States, they chanted death to America. In fact, they chanted death to America the day the agreement

was signed. Then Iran went on a terrorist spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. So, here's a deal. Donald Trump, of course, was pretty

much making stuff up there. He, of course, he said that $150 million. Well, the Associated Press did a fact check. And this is what they say. Quote, when Iran signed the multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in return for being freed from sanctions,

it regained access to its own assets. So the United States didn't give Iran $150 billion. This is a quote from Associated Press. There was no $150 billion gift from the U.S. Treasury or other countries. Iran was allowed to get its money back. The $1.8 billion refers to a separate matter also misstated or lied by the president going back to before the 2016 election. Huh. AP, a payout of roughly that amount did come from the U.S. Treasury. It was to pay an old IOU. In the 1970s, Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered

because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. After the nuclear deal, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the matter, but the U.S. agreed to pay the $400 million principle along with about $1.3 billion in interest. The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later. In Trump's telling, one cargo plane with $400 million that was owed to Iran has become big planes.

757s, Boeing 757s, loaded with $1.8 billion giveaway. Go to our panel. Monique Presley, legal analyst and crisis manager. C.J. Jordan, CEO of Jordan Management Group. Rob Richardson, he is the host of Disruption Now podcast who joins us via Skype. C.J., why is he lying? I mean, why is he speaking the truth?

No, he's lying. He's not lying. He is lying. When he says we gave them $150 billion, we did not give them $150 billion. Assets were unfrozen. Giving someone $150 billion and unfreezing assets,

which is their own money, that's not giving. At the end of the day, it's semantics. No, no, no. I want to deal with the beginning of the day. No, at the end of the day, as I was saying,

they got $1.7 billion. No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. Let's stop. Stop. That's separate. I just read that. I understand. I'm not stupid. No, no, no. Let's first deal with the $150 billion. Allow me to finish my statement. No, no, no. Let's deal with the $150 billion. I'm going to come back to the $1.8 billion, not $1.7.

So let's deal with this here. We didn't give them $150 billion. Assets were unfrozen. The bottom line is whether you want to deal with assets unfrozen, it was still given to them by the U.S. government under the prior administration. So now, what did they do with that fluid cash?

They bought additional military assets and used it within the region. Who did they buy it from? China, probably Russia. No, but where's the evidence they bought it? What are you talking about? They bought military equipment? The bottom line is, they circumvented the sanctions. Hold up. You just

said they bought stuff. Where's the evidence of that? Our military. No, where's the proof? The proof is the spy planes that saw and the times that we intercepted equipment going into Iran. That's documented. Where are you getting this from? Read it. Look it up.

No, from where? What's your source? The media. There were evidence of... The media? Yes. Okay, which one? There's left-leaning media, CNN, where...

No, no, no, but show... Do you have a link? I can look it up and give it to you. Okay, I'm just trying to understand the proof here, okay? Monique, when you listen to what he says, now all of a sudden he wants to blame Obama for this, okay? Monique, when you listen to what he says, now all of a sudden he wants to blame Obama for this, okay? Saying that Obama, or even

previous presidents, they should have killed this Iraqi general. This is someone who has no understanding of what the hell is going on in Iraq or Iran. Right, because it's not that prior presidents didn't

have plans and opportunity to take out this leader. And it's not like other countries didn't either. They chose not to do that because they knew that it would put them in a position that we're in now. But I don't expect anything different from this president. I mean, he's... Blame Obama is the only... Blame Obama and destroy any semblance of any policy that was successful under President Obama.

That's the only thing that he's interested in doing. And I'm surprised it took this long for them to try to start this conflict, because he's surrounded himself with a bunch of warhawks that wanted to get it done. Rob, if you really want to laugh, and actually it's sad, to listen to Donald Trump decry the Iraq, the Iran nuclear agreement, and then say they should come back to the table to do a new deal. Okay, let's see here. So you mean to tell me that the United

States, along with multiple other countries, negotiated a nuclear deal to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon for the next 15 years. Donald Trump comes in, tears that deal up, and then actually believes that Iran is going to trust him in a negotiation? After, of course, he killed. Does he think Iran is operating like the people who gave Trump the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City? Look, I don't know what Trump is thinking. This is what I do know, though. As was stated earlier, he likes to do everything to blame Obama for any problem that's happened,

but he doesn't give Obama any credit for anything that's gone well. So you can pretty much know everything that has gone wrong for Trump, you can always go back to blame Obama. But you look at this Iran agreement, the agreement that you just talked about. It was a good agreement. The part he didn't like about it was that Obama was a part of it. So he decided he wanted to cancel it, didn't have a plan for what he wanted to do, and then wanted to figure out a way to change the subject. This is what this is about. No matter what anybody else says, he wants to change the subject from impeachment. He wants

to change the subject from the fact that he has betrayed this nation and wants to have a conversation about war, Iran, anything else but what he's done, the crimes he's committed. That is why he's doing this. And I'll just say one final thing. You know, he's the present occupant of the White House. He doesn't deserve the respect to be called president. He doesn't respect that office, and so he's the present occupant of the White House. He doesn't deserve the respect to be called president. He doesn't reserve that... He doesn't, uh, respect that office.

And so he's the president occupant of the White House as far as I'm concerned. Uh, when you look... He does not trust the intelligence. The intelligence, uh, every time the intelligence says something that he doesn't like, they're the deep state. They're after them. They're corrupt. Now we're supposed to believe him that, uh, that the intelligence told him this,

and we know that it's probably not true because the one consistent thing I can tell you about the present occupant of the White House is that he's a liar. So... Let's not forget the oil. Go ahead. I was just gonna say, I mean, this is the one war that since he was running for office,

he was interested in, and it's interesting to me that Bolton's stepping forward now once he finally got his war, or at least the march up to it. But every single administration official at some point during their remarks said, and if Iran's not careful, they're going to lose some oil. And if this happens, we're going to get the grip on more oil. I mean, there's a point to this madness. And the way that it's done is reckless.

And it's unfortunate and sad for the United States that human lives of our armed forces are not treated with more care for the ultimate sacrifice that they make in these circumstances. I mean, I disagree with that statement. I mean, our military has gotten pay raises, has been treated better than Obama. They're not a photo op like Obama treated them. And more importantly... I'm sorry, you said they're not a photo op like Obama treated them. And more

importantly... I'm sorry, you said they're not a photo op like Obama treated them? What does that mean? Every time he turned around, he was doing a photo op. I'm sorry, when you say photo op, allow me to finish. Are you saying the president can't appear and speak to troops? I'm not saying that. No, if you're going to say it's a photo op,

I mean, you define it. What does that mean? A photo op. I mean, every time he. What does that mean? A photo op. I mean, every time he turned around, he was doing a photo op. He didn't give him a pay raise. He didn't do what he needed to do with the VA. And he didn't give the commanders in the field. He didn't do what he needed to do with the VA? No, he didn't. Is this guy doing it?

Oh, most definitely. Where's the proof? Recent bills that was a pay raise. He's made sure the VA has. No, no, no. A pay raise for the military ain't the VA. The VA is the Department of Veteran Affairs. I understand that. Okay, but that's the same as a pay raise for the military. Allow me

to finish what I was saying. But that's a separate thing. Go ahead. So again, when we talk about the military and veterans affairs, pay raise. When we talk about getting the backlog of benefit claims done, he's done that. So the backlog is over. No.

It's not over, but it has decreased. According to IAVA, I'm sorry, according to veterans organizations, that's not true. No, that's a left-leaning veterans organization. No, they're not left-leaning. Where's your proof? My proof? I'll send you some links.

I appreciate the proof because it's amazing how you keep saying this, but literally, veterans organizations who actually are fighting for this, told me to say this isn't happening. It is happening. And more importantly, I hope that you will go up on Capitol Hill when

they have their bicommal piece of veterans organizations, when they testify on what has gone through so far. And, more importantly, he's also had... and allowing more veterans to go with decreased wait times to private hospitals. So, yes, he's done some great things for our veterans. You might not like it.

So, wait a minute. So, you're giving credit, Trump, for a veterans change that happened under Obama. Monique, go ahead. No, it was not under Obama. That was what I was about to say. Monique, go ahead. It was not under Obama.

Monique, go ahead. It was not under Obama. The bill was first signed in 2014. It was not under Obama. 2014 by President Barack Obama that enabled private dollars to pay for veterans' needs, medical and health care needs, through the VA.

And this current president... CJ, that was 2014. And he's updated it. It was more laws that he's updated. Ah! Ah! Thank you. Hold on, hold on. Monique, then Rob. Go ahead.

But the problem, and I really, I don't want to get into this random and absurd conversation, but I do want for the people who are listening to hear facts, and it is not a fact that President Trump was the one responsible for the gains under the VA. They renewed a program that was previously initiated under the administration of President Obama and signed in 2014 by Obama, and there were increases to the overall budget of the VA during President Obama's tenure.

And I'm not understanding at all why you would say that that's not true. Let me also point out another lie you just said, CJ. A lie? Yes, a lie. You said the veterans did not get a pay raise under Obama, right?

Is that what you said? They got the biggest pay raise under Trump. You said, no, no. You said, you said veterans did not get a pay raise under Obama. Oh, I mean, veterans don't get a pay raise based on you. They're veterans, military. No, no, no. Okay, military.

So you said military did not get a pay raise under Obama. They didn't get a large one, no. No, no, no. Hold up. You said they didn't get a pay raise under Obama. They didn't get a large one, no. No, no, no. Hold up. You said they didn't get a pay raise. So which one is it, CJ? A pay raise or not? Which one is it?

They got the largest one under Trump. Okay, now you... Okay, see, if you're going to make a lie, if you're going to state a lie, either stand with it or say, you know what, I was wrong. So which one is it? I might have misstated,

but they got the biggest one under Trump. No, you only misstated because you know I was about to come with the heat because the reality is... I'm not afraid of anything that you're gonna bring with me. Let me give you a fact, okay? The last time service members did not get an annual pay increase

was 1983. This, okay, listen, Todd Harrison... Did they get one under Bush? Todd Harrison, did you not hear what I just said? The last time... I asked you, did they... Listen, listen. Todd Harrison. Did they get one under Bush? Todd Harrison, did you not hear what I just said? The last time... Listen, listen. I can hear. CJ, quote from Politifact.

Politifact. The last time service members didn't receive an annual pay increase was in 1983, and that was only because of a one-time technical quirk. Trump was, quote, totally incorrect, said Todd Harrison, Director of Defense Budget Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quote, the military has gotten a pay raise

each and every year. Rob. So the whole point of this, because I know CJ effectively took us down a rabbit hole, the president is playing games with war. He's a billionaire. This doesn't matter to him. He does not care.

He thinks it's a game. And he just has fun. Like, he's a reality show host. That's what he does. And now he's playing president. And he's using this opportunity to figure out everything else. No, actually, he was a serious person that actually was a scholar and did a lot to earn his way there.

This person, you know, wrote his back off. What, missing half of over 50%? But anyway, let's get here on that. Rob, Rob, Rob, Rob, Rob, hold on one second because see, here's the other deal. CJ also had another lie.

And it was a lie. She said they got the largest pay raise under Trump. Henry, go to my iPad. This is a chart showing average annual basic pay increase for the United States military 1974 through 2018. The largest pay raise took place in 1981. Second largest was in 1980.

The third largest, which tied with 1977, took place in 2002. You said that didn't happen, right? Who was president in 2002? Was that Bush? Because you questioned whether Bush gave him a pay raise. Now, let's zoom in to this. CJ, look at the monitor.

I'm looking. Here it shows pay raises for the military. You see the years 2008, 9, 10. 2008, 9, and 10 are higher than 2017 and 18. So this actually proved what you said is a lie. You said they got the largest pay increase. This shows right here that there was a... I'm not done.

This says there was a larger pay increase for the military in 2009 and 2010 under Obama than in 2017 and 2018 under Trump? Based on what? My facts and based on... Based upon your facts and my president... I'll turn to facts. Hold up. Your facts. I don't have alternative facts. I'm sorry, CJ. Let me help you. Do you know where...

The president has stated... No, no, CJ. CJ. The president has stated... CJ, do you know where I'm getting this from? ...and Congress has stated. No, CJ. Look, this is... Henry, show it, please. You said your facts. What I just showed you, CJ, look, this is, y'all, Henry, show it, please. You said your facts. What I just showed you, CJ, came from the National Defense Budget Estimates

for fiscal year 2019. What does it say? Department of Defense. So what are your facts? The president of the United States, and I will not dispute what he has stated. So you believe in a liar. Okay.

Rob, go ahead. No, look, look, we, The president of the United States, and I will not dispute what he has stated. So you believe in a liar. Okay. Rob, go ahead. No, look. Look, Trump has created a world where there really are complete alternative facts, and people believe in an entire universe, one that's completely made up. None of us are there except those who want to believe it. So, look, he created this war as a distraction. He wants to distract people from his bad behavior, from his corrupt behavior,

from his impeachable behavior. He wants to have a conversation about war and how tough he is. He's not tough. He's not tough at all. And look, I just hope people are paying attention because this could escalate. Thankfully, it looks like it hasn't to this point, but we're just fortunate right now. But every moment he is in the White House, people are at risk. And our freedom is at risk. And the people that serve our military are at risk. He does not care about what their families are going through. He executed this without any thought, without any type of strategy about what would actually be next. He just said, oh, I want to look tough. Let's do this.

Send out a tweet, and then I can just do this. This was not planned out. and it wasn't smart. He had a strategy. Did you not see his national security team behind him? Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry, hold up. Did you just say he had a strategy? Yes, he did.

Is that what you said? He had a strategy. Ladies and gentlemen, Monique, hold on. I want you to hold that point. Because, y'all, today there was a military briefing that took place on Capitol Hill. Republicans and Democrats. This is Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Republican.

This is what he had to say after listening to the so-called strategy of Donald Trump. We just left a briefing, and we were talking about Iran. I want to state at the outset, I support President Trump. I support and respect the manner in which he has approached his commander-in-chief powers. I believe that more than any other president in my lifetime, President Trump has shown a lot of restraint. He's been reluctant to get us involved in wars all over the globe. He's been very mindful and respectful of the fact that when the American people are asked

to give up blood and treasure, they're sending off their sons and their daughters, their moms and their dads into battlefield. And he's therefore very careful about it. I respect that enormously. My comments at the moment are not directed toward the attack that occurred on Friday. We'll leave that to another day. I will say that we were brought into this briefing today to talk to us about that attack on Friday. I had hoped and expected to receive more information outlining the legal, factual, and moral justification for the attack.

I was left somewhat unsatisfied on that front. The briefing lasted only 75 minutes, whereupon our briefers left. This, however, is not the biggest problem I have with the briefing, which I would add was probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate. What I found... He said it was the worst military briefing in the nine years he served in the United States Senate.

Trump has been there how many years? That means Mike Lee came in when Obama was president. Henry, go back to my iPad. Stressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And that if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran. The implication being that we would somehow be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and I find it demeaning to the Constitution of the United States, to which we've all sworn an oath.

It is, after all, the prerogative of the legislative branch to declare war. Article 1, Section 8 makes that very clear. Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 69 made clear that this was a sharp contrast from the form of government that we had prior to the Revolution, a form of government in which the executive, the king, had the power to take us to war. He did not need the parliament to weigh in on it, to support it. That was the parliament's job after the fact, after we had gone into war. He did not need the Parliament to weigh in on it, to support it. That was the Parliament's job after the fact, after we had gone into war. This, Hamilton explained in Federalist 69, is exactly the reason why this power was put in Article 1, Section 8,

in the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. When we send our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines into harm's way. We owe the American people the decent courtesy to follow the Constitution, to debate and discuss these actions. For them to tell us that either through a War Powers Act resolution or otherwise, for us to debate and discuss these things on the Senate floor would somehow weaken the American cause and embolden Iran in any other actions, I find very insulting. debate and discuss these things on the Senate floor would somehow weaken the American cause and embolden Iran in any other actions. I find very insulting. Now, look,

I hope if they'll come back and they'll say, no, you misunderstood us worst brief, worst military briefing in my nine years. This is Trump's so-called best and brightest. Yes. that is he's saying the insult to the institution to Congress and to the Constitution is it's this you can see the authoritarianism coming through that don't you dare question because those are the orders that they're getting that their commander-in-chief does not want any pushback any debating any concern for Congress to actually do their job, which is if we're going to declare a war, it has to be discussed. It has to be debated and decided by them. But the

marching orders that the White House is giving is that they somehow threaten the safety of our country by doing the job that the Constitution of the United States requires them to do. It is not optional for them to question and require from the president justification if the recommendation is, as I said before, sending men and women into harm's way. I received a text message three, four days ago, the day before the attack from a girlfriend who I'll just leave off here from my hometown, and she sent me a picture of her son that they had seen on social media, which was how she found out that he had been dispatched and asked for our prayers.

And her daughter was the one who had sent it to her. Now, that goes with the job. Everybody knows that. But when that happens because this president is trying to duck an impeachment and the heat that goes with that and trying to distract from it, or when it happens because the president is surrounded by people whose only real desire is to create opportunities for revenue and for personal gain,

then, as I said, we are in a very sad situation. Rob, what is interesting here is that this is Donald Trump's people telling United States senators, duly elected, one, don't do your job, two, you don't have any oversight of what we do. Right. Well, you know, and to this point, I can see why he told him that, because they've gone

along with it. Most people in that party have been cowards and traitors. They've gone along with whatever the president has said, no matter what the Constitution says, no matter how corrupt, no matter how much he tried to overrule their authority. This has been done many times. This current president has done so many things that other presidents, I mean, Obama, of course, he couldn't have done any of these things. He would have been thrown out, probably be in jail right now. But no president has done the amount of things he's done. So I want them to hopefully, he started showing maybe they have a little bit of a backbone,

because I'm not sure. I mean, he's trying to get rid of Congress, because at this point, if they don't stand up at some point, we don't have a constitution, we don't have a little bit of a backbone? Because I'm not sure. I mean, he's trying to get rid of Congress because at this point, if they don't stand up at some point, we don't have a constitution, we don't have a rule of law, we don't have anything. Just think about that point he said, as I conclude. He said, the military officials that were briefing Senator Lee said that debate weakens America.

Debate is the most American thing we can have. If we're not able to debate, we no longer have a free country. Why are we here? Are we just going to make Trump king? Is that what we're doing now? I'm just asking. CJ, Ed O'Keefe was with CBS News. This is what he tweeted out.

Here we go to my iPad. Schumer asked that Pompeo, Secretary of State, Esper, Secretary of Defense and company, announced that they had to leave as the questions got harder. Pompeo and Esper were set to address reporters after the all-senators briefing, but left without doing so. Apparently, 97 senators were in attendance. Only 15 got to ask questions.

You just heard an ardent, hardcore supporter of Donald Trump call that the worst military briefing in nine years. You defend that nonsense? At the end of the day Senator Lee a great libertarian who is a Republican he is a Republican he's a libertarian voted along the lines of Donald Trump yes he has and again has he supported Donald Trump and again as his First Amendment right he's entitled to this opinion no actually no as the right is not a state senator it was him and Rand Paul And they're both entitled to their opinion, and he gave it.

But does it not bother you when you have two U.S. senators say it was the worst military briefing in nine years? No, because at the end of the day, this president ran that there would be no Benghazi on his watch. Iran attacked our embassy. He killed a contractor. I'm sorry, Iran attacked our embassy when? Yes.

The other night, the reason we sent a missile over there. Keep going. And so at the end of the day, this president said there'd be no Benghazi. And he's not going to send up there, and Secretary Pompeo is not going to say, oh, what difference does it make? It makes a goddamn difference when you have someone,

when we talk about a red line, he told them if you hit our bases, if you hit our men and women, if you hit our bases, if you hit our men and women, if you hit our embassy, hey, be prepared for retaliation. And again, as J.R. Johnson said, who had served twice in the Obama administration as

the head attorney for DOD and then over to J.R. Johnson. Okay, I'm sorry. J.R. Johnson was the head of the Department of Homeland Security. No, before he went to Homeland Security. No, but you said two terms. He served in two positions. Right, but he was... He started off at DOD.

He was the head of the Department of Homeland Security. He started off at DOD, thank you. Right. As a military attorney. Right, but he wasn't just an attorney. He became Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. You didn't let me finish. So he started off there.

And then he went to Secretary of Homeland Security. He said, along with other folks, that the president had the right and the authority... Okay, you still haven't answered the question. First of all, we understand the president has the right to the authority to call... And again, and the president has never said... The president has never said...

And he has not said that we are going to war. And if we go to war just as President Bush did, then the Senate and the House can debate. We know that. But you still have not addressed the issue of that when you have United States Senators who are Republicans who are saying it was an awful briefing and how do you

go to the United States Senate and you do a 75-minute briefing? You don't have to be in there for five hours. They chose that they wanted to do a 75-minute briefing. You don't have to be in there for five hours. They chose that they wanted to do a 75-minute briefing. You were talking about the killing of a major leader. Wait, wait, wait. This is a world leader that, by the way, he was not a good person.

That's not the point. Are we going to start taking out everybody that we disagree with? And the threat was imminent. And he said, look, there will be no Benghazis, and he's not going to do what he wants. Rob, Rob, Rob is talking. Go ahead, Rob. Hold on, CJ. I'll let you going to do well. Rob, Rob, Rob is talking. Go ahead, Rob. Go ahead, Rob. Hold on, CJ. I'll let you finish. But nobody has said there was a credible threat except for Trump.

And so far, you heard people have the debrief, and no one can back up the claims that this president says. So, you know, he seems to be lying or making it up. No, the Democrats said that. You only had two Republicans that said they didn't. No, Mike Lee said it was the worst briefing you ever heard. He said it was the worst briefing. He didn't talk about the claims. And he also said, wait, I have this one question for you.

Are you okay with them saying debate makes America weak? Do you agree with that? The president never said that. I don't know. People said it. I was not in there. Hell, you weren't in any of the meetings you say you're talking about. I wasn't in there.

You have sat here and tried to offer so-called evidence. You were not in a single one of those meetings. You don't know where my ass was. You can't even state where you got it from. I got it from. CJ, you are literally sitting here making stuff up. Like the American people. No.

The president said through his Twitter feed when he spoke to the American people. CJ, you are literally. He said that he would not have a Benghazi. This is a Comedy Central segment. You are literally sitting here making stuff up and then go, oh, I'll sing you the lynch. You can't even pull it up on your iPad. Pull them up.

Veterans with Trump, Administration Mission Acts reforms. Wins. That's from where? Again. No, that's from where? Military.com. So what does the story say? And that was July.

No, what does the story say? You read the headline. What is it? You want to read it? I'll send it to you. No, no, what is it? No, we're sitting here. The headlines in the media, Department of Veterans Affairs implementation of the Mission Act was going to be something of a mess. One story said

expect glitches. Another said confusion. I'm sorry, hold up. You said which act? The Mission Act. Okay. Hold up, hold up. I'm sorry, hold up, hold up. You said the Mission Act. Yes.

Who signed that? Donald Trump. So when Monique laid out to you the fact that the bill was signed under Obama, so what, it doesn't matter? No, this was not signed under Obama. No, no. She stated. No. You touted. Stop, stop, CJ. No, I didn't matter? No, this was not signed under Obama. No, no. She stated. You touted.

Stop. Stop, CJ. CJ, CJ. You touted VA members being allowed to go to private hospitals. You credited Trump for that. Okay? He updated it. He updated it.

And you said it was a mess under Obama. It was signed by Obama. Without Obama signing it, it ain't law. So how you gonna credit Trump and ignore... No, no, no. How you gonna credit Trump but ignore the guy who signed the bill and ignore the Congress who passed

it when Trump was sitting there in New York? How you gonna do that? I'm not doing it. Monique, go ahead. Again, this is like... This ain't even alternative facts. This is like straight up make-believe. Go ahead. So I think what it's important for us to do now

as voters and as a country is to not ignore the necessity of impeachment hearings because someone who is not stable, who is amoral, and who delights in proceeding absent education and not listening to the advice of those who are left around him who actually can provide it. What we have to do is the opposite of what the president and his minions want. So we have to pay attention to the impeachment process. We have to call our senators and impress upon them the importance of the procedure being fair,

the importance of there being a real trial, the importance of witnesses being called and stay on mission. And it does matter. So when someone like Bolton, who three or four at this point other witnesses have provided testimony about, be thinking. There are transcripts of those meetings. There are readouts and notes from the people who said that he said different things. We need to hear all of that and that's what's going to make a difference. Don't do this, where we just fall for the banana in the tailpipe. I completely agree.

And we start talking about, I mean, I'm in some sort of diamond and silk redo, but I am neither diamond nor silk. Just keep that in mind. Rob, final comment. No, no, just to add to her point, and I'll be very quick on this. You know, democracy is hard to maintain, and all the close questions of America, ending Jim Crow, ending slavery,

were very, very, very close questions. And it requires people to be engaged. So, you know, nothing's guaranteed. Our democracy is not guaranteed. The future is not guaranteed. Progress is not guaranteed. All of that has to be fought for. We have to stay engaged. We have to stay vigilant.

These are really, really, really close and stressful times. And this current president can change the whole trajectory of America and take away freedoms from many, many, many different people if we're not careful. So, look, we better be engaged. We better wake up. Yeah. And again, folks, the reason we do a fact check, because I don't tolerate when Donald Trump lies,

I use the hashtag TrumpLiesMatter, every time he lies and somebody comes on this show and lies and makes stuff up, you're going to get called out. It doesn't matter if you're Democrat, it doesn't matter if you're Republican, whether you're black, whether you're white, it doesn't matter. But the bottom line is, Donald Trump consistently stands in front of the American people and lies

and somehow thinks that we can't go back and check those things. Like, for instance, when he kept claiming that the bill Monique talked about, he kept claiming that he actually signed it into law. No, he didn't. Those were lies. That bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Gotta go to break. When we come back, we'll talk to

Deval Patrick. Does he have a shot at getting the Democratic nomination? And if not, why is he running? You're watching Roland Martin on the field. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's youtube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. All right, folks, let's talk about

actually, we're going to go right to the Deval Patrick story, folks, and let's deal right with that. Yesterday, of course, we talked to the former governor of Massachusetts about him running for the Democratic nomination. Here's a part of that interview. All right, we'll get there in a second, folks. So, of course, we had about a 30-minute interview with Governor Deval Patrick on yesterday. Let me know when we have that clip ready

where he talked about why he was running. Now we have it ready. Go ahead. Governor Deval Patrick, glad to have you on Roller Martin Unfiltered. Good to be with you. Thank you. Happy New Year. So when you and I talked at the NAACP convention last year, I specifically asked you whether or not you were going to run. You hedged on that very issue. Well, people are asking, oh, my goodness, is he going to run? Are you thinking about it or are you talking about it?

Just your thoughts about potentially 2020. Well, look, I'm not running today. I'm here because I... Except to catch a plane at 530. Yeah, right. I do have to run soon. You know, I've got a great new business where we're doing impact investing and I'm focused on that and I've got a great team and some investors and a team and some companies we've invested in who are depending on us and depending

on me to be engaged in that. And I'm trying to be involved in the midterms because I think it's a critical cycle. And in campaigning across the country for different folks? Yeah, and we've identified a number of, a small number of campaigns where I've been invited and where I think I can be helpful and I can do that consistent with my day job. And that's my focus for now. And all of a sudden, what, 20 plus candidates got in the race in January and February and

months ago. And then all of a sudden, very late in 2019, you just have to jump in. Why? Well, we were ready to go more than a year before. And about three weeks before our announcement date, my wife, Diane, was diagnosed with cancer. And that's the sort of thing that just brings your feet back to earth, Roland. We paid attention to her and to that. I'm very, very grateful that when we celebrated 35 years of marriage in May, she's cancer-free. We continue to watch a race, a race with a lot of talent in it and a lot of time and a lot of money,

but where the leader still is somebody called undecided. And I think that folks are undecided because we're at risk of missing a moment, a moment where we can do more than get rid of the current president, but really reinvent America so that prosperity and justice is available to everybody everywhere. And that's been a lot of my life's work, as I think you know. And I believe that I have a unique range of life and leadership experience to deliver on that. The question is, does he have a shot? Why is he in the race? Monique, your assessment. The shame of it is how late he's entered because he's a great guy.

Super smart. Does well in rooms. And I've been, because I vowed this election cycle, I am going to listen to every single person so I know what they're talking about. And I understand why people are pulling into those rooms in Iowa to listen to him. I don't know if he gets any traction or not. And the name of the game right now is Vice President Biden.

So, uh, if he can do anything to pick him off, I haven't seen it yet. CJ, your assessment of Deval Patrick, uh, did he get in too late? Oh, he definitely got in too late. I mean, at the end of the day, he has to compete with not just Joe Biden, he has to compete with Elizabeth Warren

based on the fact that a lot of Obama's folks are, you know, lining up behind her. And then he has to contend with, you know, what is Mike Bloomberg out here doing? So, I mean, he should have gotten in much sooner. The question now, you know, can he position himself to be on a VP ticket? Rob?

So, I actually like Governor Deval Patrick. He was on my show as well. I just think it's too late, and he got involved too late, and I think he saw an opening in the moderate lane and believed he could occupy that space. I just don't think he has the time

or a narrative that can get him there. So I wish I could give a better answer, but I think that's the answer. And again, I think that when you look at this race, most folks started getting this race. Some declared, what, the end of 2018. Then, of course, you saw 2019. And he's right, Undecided is leading, but I think you're seeing what's going to happen.

Folks are going to be voting in Iowa next month, and so I think it's going to be really difficult for him to move forward. Now, Democrats are also complaining about Mike Bloomberg because he is self-funding his campaign, is getting pushback from them. He made it perfectly clear that he is not, that he will love to participate in the debates, but the democratic rules require that you actually have grassroots support. You

have a certain number of donors. Rob, I'll start with you. This is where I think it is important. Like, I get it. Mike Bloomberg is rich as hell. He's what? He is rich. $20, $30, $40 billion. A lot of money. No, $54 billion. But what the Democrats are also saying is that by having these requirements, and I know people have complained about them. I know Senator Cory Booker has complained because he actually hasn't qualified for the January debates because of the thresholds. But I actually agree with those thresholds.

I think it is important for somebody seeking the nomination to have donors from all 50 states, to have people from all across the country, because you also need to be able to show you have a grassroots effort. I saw, matter of fact, Jonathan Capehart send a tweet out earlier. I responded to it because, frankly, I disagreed with it,

where he basically criticized the people who are criticizing Mike Bloomberg by saying that Bloomberg is running these ads and what he is doing is, he is doing what he's doing. He said that he is, I'll read the tweet. He says, enough with the whining about Bloomberg trying to buy the president nomination. Yes, he is spending a lot of his own money to make his bid viable, but he's also doing what party needs,

waging an assault against Trump that will benefit the eventual nominee. I said, but K-Part, Mike Bloomberg, could have taken that $100 million and waged that war against Donald Trump by funding a massive grassroots campaign. The only folks he has made happy are TV station execs who love the money he is spending. Jonathan responded by saying his pockets are deep enough to do both.

$100 million digital ad campaign, $10 million to protect House Dems, $15 to $20 million voter registration in 10 swing states. But that's not my point. My point is, dude, you're spending $100 million already running. It's not going anywhere. I'm sorry. Mike Bloomberg, you ain't getting the nomination. No, I don't see it happening under any circumstance. And he's also avoiding accountability because, look, he could qualify for those debates.

He'd just have to spend a little bit of money on Facebook ads. He'd find all those donors all across the country. You'd get $1 from people all across the country. So he is using that as an excuse to not debate things like stop and frisk that he reintroduced in New York. And he should be held accountable, and there should be debate about that because, as you know, a lot of the Democratic base is African-American. That had a disproportionate effect against African-Americans. We ought to be able to talk about it and at least learn where he stands on that now.

I think that's completely fair, and it's unfair for him not to be held accountable. And second, look, if you're running for president, you need to do more than be able to raise money. Let me tell you, Hillary Clinton raised more money than Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton didn't win the presidency. Raising more money is not enough. You have to also have avid support. And what I'm fearful of, he's not going to get the nomination, one, but if he did, I think he would lose to Donald Trump.

CJ? I think, you know, when you look at Mike Bloomberg, it's not just his record. I think he's been, had a different title as an officeholder about four times. He's Democrat, Republican, Independent. Now he's back at being a Democrat. So I don't think that bodes well

within the Democratic primary. I think, you know, Bernie Sanders has done a tremendous job because he's been campaigning since 2016, ever since he felt that the nomination was stolen from him. And I think... But it wasn't. He actually lost.

I'm just saying. Well, he can say whatever he wants to, but he lost. I'm just repeating what he said. Well, he lost. And so, based on the fact that he felt the nomination was stolen from him, I think Bloomberg feels that I don't have to defend my record, I don't have to, you know, abide by the party rules, I don't have to respect the Democratic base.

I want to get in this, and if I can be a spoiler, if I can go to the convention and make it a contested one, that's what I'm willing to do. Money. This is again, very rich guy. I get it. He's got enough money. Sure. He can, he can blow his money, but look at Tom Steyer. He's a billionaire. He complied with the rules. He went out, use his money to build his list, to get those donations, to get into debates. Bottom line, Mike Bloomberg needs to be on those debate stages, going up against the other candidates if he wants folks to support him. Just sitting here buying a bunch of TV ads, and this is what I told Jonathan.

The people who are most happy with Mike Bloomberg are network and television executives. The people who are making money from this. So he's doing like a vanity publishing project. To me, that's the equivalent of what his run is, the way that people will write a book that nobody wants to buy, you know, and then they'll self-publish or they'll find a way for some publisher to just for the sake of them having a book. So for the sake of him being in this race, he's willing to burn money because it's the same as burning it. He's not helping the party with the money that he's spending on getting himself elected.

It'd be different if it was, as everyone's already said, already attack ads. But what I think was important about what he said in response was this. I listen to other people, but I don't want to have to answer to them. I'm not for sale. I'm not bought. Now, that would be well and good if it wasn't for the fact that he's running for a position where you have to answer to people. And that's why the rules are in place, so that there can be a gauge on whether there is a real public support for him and whether he's accountable to anyone. And as it stands now, he's accountable only to himself. And that is dangerous. But the Democratic Party can fix it. They have rules now. They can

have rules to address this situation. So in that regard, I agree with Capehart. They're complaining about a circumvention of the rules they put in place. Well, I think actually, but also, the complaints from candidates towards Bloomberg are really about nailing him for trying to buy the presidency. Correct. Look, these candidates aren't saying, oh, Mike, please go out and get $200,000 from 50 states so you can be in the debate. No, what they're saying is you're a rich dude who's trying to buy this race. Which is true.

And you don't want to sit here and have to, frankly, yes, listen to other people. And the reality is this here. Mike Bloomberg actually, again, by being so rich, by running these ads, he does believe that he can circumvent the process and not have to answer tough questions about his record, which is why his so-called apology at Pastor A.R. Bernard's church for stopping the frisk was BS. When he was asked by a CBS reporter about the Central Park Five case, and it's like, oh, I've really forgotten those things. See, that doesn't cut it on a debate stage. And so what he's doing is he's going to these places where he's doing these one-offs or where it's just sort of him on stage.

This Friday, he's going to be at Stacey Abrams' voter summit in Georgia. Of course, he was a huge donor of that as well. But Mike Bloomberg, if he wants to be the Democratic nominee, he needs to answer questions, answer his record, and be on the stage so everybody can see how he fares against Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, and all the other candidates. That, Rob, has to happen. And it's also, by the way, it's also good training

because he's going to have to go. Let's say he did get the nomination, which I still don't think is going to happen. He's going to go against Donald Trump, and he's going to go against the whole Republican apparatus. And these debates help prepare you for that moment. So he needs to do it also if he's serious about being the candidate. It will help him.

It will refine his message. You need to know how you can stand up against your opponent. So he should do it anyway. Well, the only chance he has at getting the black vote is if he explains himself. If he continues to refuse to debate and explain himself, then he will not get the nomination. He won't get it anyway. You're explaining you're losing.

I think he's doing Stacey's place event to say, hey, I've gone to a black event and I'm doing this. But the other thing no one's talking about is the fact that the Democratic candidates, they don't have enough money to pay the political rates on these stations because he's made it sky high. So how are they going to be able to get their message out based on the ad buys that Bloomberg has done.

Okay, but you're a Democratic candidate. You're not worried about that because the reality is this here. If you look at the existing polling in those first three states, yeah, Bloomberg, because of his ads, according to the polling, is at 10, 11 percent, but polling is really also about name identification. The question is this here. Does Mike Bloomberg have an infrastructure on the ground? Iowa? Iowa is not about TV ads. Iowa is about boots on the ground. Can you get your people to go to the caucuses?

And the reality is all the rest of those candidates, even Senator Kamala Harris, who dropped out, they had infrastructure. They've been putting that stuff in place. What Bloomberg is thinking, he's thinking, oh, I can fly in at 30,000 feet, fly right over all of this, and y'all just going to come out and vote for me because I'm a rich guy, and it should be a rich guy from New York against a rich guy from New York.

It should be a former Republican who's now independent, who's now Democrat, running against a former Democrat who now says he's Republican. Yeah. Yeah. And yeah. And Mike, you're going to do some real interviews. Sitting down with more than just national media outlets. Because

if he somehow thinks, to Monty's point, if he thinks he's just going to walk into Georgia and walk into South Carolina and walk into Florida and walk into North Carolina and walk into these states where black

voters are, Mike, let me show you what the response is going to be from black voters. Well, the question is going to be what will states do? This is what it's going to be from black voters? Well, the question is going to be, what will Stacey do? This is what it's going to look like. The question is, what is Stacey going to do? It don't matter. First of all,

Stacey Abrams can do whatever she wants to do. This is a primary. This is a primary. And this is very simple. You can't just run ads and then go, I'm good. No. You got to put the work in. The point of it...

Look, okay, Trump beat all those Republicans, but he still had to do some damn work. He did a lot of work. You couldn't just sit here and say, I'm going to just run some ads and it's all good. Nah. He was in every debate. He was in every debate.

Nah, nah, I'm telling you. Bloomberg not being in debates, yeah, it's going to be a problem. Well, he didn't mind taking other people's money, so of course he was in every debate. I'm telling you, Bloomberg not being in debates, yeah, it's going to be a problem. Well, he didn't mind taking other people's money, so of course he was in every debate. Oh, hell yeah, because he had no intentions on self-funding. He lives off of OPM. He was lying about self-funding his campaign. Come on.

Hell yeah, he was going to take other people's money. That's all he's done his whole career. All right, I've got to go to the break. I'll be right back on Roller Martin Unfiltered. You want to check out Roller Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real.

It's Roller Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roller Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. All right, y'all, speaking of black folks in these various campaigns, I want to go,

so Pete Buttigieg is out with a new black ad. Oh, yeah. So here's a video of black folks touting, black folks from South Bend, Indiana, touting Pete Buttigieg for president. I'm Pete Buttigieg, and I approve this message. Manufacturing companies, when they shut down, the workforce shuts down.

The homes were dilapidated and falling and crumbling. I met Pete when he was running for mayor. What I saw was that he was accessible. He listened to our community. Mayor Pete is light years ahead of some people that have been in politics for many, many years. He has a heart for our city. I think he'll show the same heart to our country.

He's never got more than 11,000 votes running, got blown away running for statewide office, mayor of a small town. Can Pete Buttigieg go from small-town mayor to Indiana to the Democratic nomination for president? Well, I would say he's going to need some better ads, though, right? I mean, this was a clear ad that was like, OK, black people like me. He needs to talk more about what he's going to do, not just have black people say, I like you. He has to say, like, well, what is it that you've done?

What is it that you're going to do to improve the lives of African-Americans and others? And so far, he's got some ways to go on that. I mean, it could happen. He's done very well in the polls. He's raised a lot of money. He had no money before. I can tell you, this current environment

is so hard to predict. I mean, Donald Trump is president, so look, anything's possible. CJ? I think the key thing for president, so look, anything's possible. CJ? I think the key thing for him, again, as Ron said, he's going to have to defend his record as mayor. You have a lot of

African Americans in his city that don't know him, and the first time they've seen him is he showed up late, went to police shootings. So he's going to have to really kind of figure out how can I not just do a commercial, but how can I just reach out and touch and have something that's more meaningful? And he's not had that meaningful debate. I mean, he went to

the Urban League, you know, he's, you know, finding different places, he's doing town halls, but he's not had that meaningful interchange with his constituents in his community in his backyard for them to vouch for him on the national stage money he has attended a number of black events he's talked he touts his marshall plan he's reached out to various black media folks i've talked to him on a couple of occasions as well why do you think he is not and i've seen your tweets as well so uh yeah the look on your face right now is nothing new. So why do you think, now go back to her, go back and put it on Monique.

She the one who's having the look. So why is he not connecting? You've been very critical, what's the deal? He's a fraud. So- How so? Because I don't care how many churches you sit through the whole service for. If when I see your interview,

you're telling young children who know better that the founding fathers unfortunately, sadly, didn't know slavery was wrong. Listen, you can't connect with me if you are untethered to the facts of the human experience as a black person in the United States of America. Now, he may be a good mayor, or maybe those black people were willing to get in that ad because they trying to get rid of him as mayor and stick him on me as president. And I don't appreciate that black people in South Bend. My point is this. He may be well-meaning, but he is uninformed and he is disingenuous. And when he is called on the carpet for both of those things, nobody comes back and explains it.

He has these sharp-tongued people under him. He comes on real sweetness and light and sincerity, and then his comms director comes and backs it up, talking about Clinton this and Biden that and operatives and all of this, and that's what I've been vocal about. I'm like, I know communications person, whatever her name is, if he said something

that is inaccurate, fix it. You're in control of the message, and your candidate is out there looking wet behind the ears because he's wet behind the ears. It's not that he may never be president. I'm just like, okay, not right now. This is white privilege.

Every time I look at him, I understand why Booker and Harris and Patrick, if he had gotten in sooner, and for that matter, Warren, Klobuchar, you name it, I understand why he can crawl on top of them as a white male and people who said that his sexual orientation were going to affect that are, I mean, they're living in la-la land. Of course not. White man in America is white man in America. And every time I look at him, that is what I see. And that is what I would say directly.

It's not wait your turn, but it's if you're going to jump the line. You ain't no Barack Obama. I'm sorry. Okay, I'm done. Not even JFK? The video on him. You're not even a JFK. But he wasn't even jumping the line like this.

He didn't come from no 11,000 vote mayor position. But hold on one second. Hold on, Rob. I'm going to come to you. I do want to play the video Monique is referencing so people can understand that. And so this is a short clip. I wish I had the full clip.

But this is what he was talking about. Here we go to my iPad. Similarly, the amendment process, they were wise enough to realize that they didn't have all the answers and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery or civil rights. It's an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing and did not respect civil rights. And yet they created a framework so that as the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing and did not respect civil rights. And yet they created a framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution, too, and ensure true equal protection for all of us. Similarly, the amendment process.

They were watching. Slavery, they didn't realize slavery wasn't a bad thing. Well, they clearly agreed with it. So they didn't think it was a bad thing. So what is your objection? That's patently false. Go ahead. Founding fathers from Madison to Jefferson...

Well, a few of them did. ...to Hamilton, even the ones who were defending it were defending it for the purpose of economy. And they figured out this three-fifths thing on the back end to justify what they were trying to do for purposes of economy. But they wrote at length about the fact that what was being done was unconscionable.

It was unconscionable, but they kept doing it. Of course. And that's why they did what they knew was bad. That's what makes him so ignorant in saying that, because they knew it was wrong. They did it anyway. And he sat there in front of these impressionable children who are now adult voters who have grown up thinking Mayor Pete said that slavery the founding fathers didn't even really know was bad. As embarrassing as it is. Embarrassing that people died?

That people jumped off of ships in order to... I'm gonna start crying. I'm done. Rob, go ahead. Well, look, it was... It clearly was a sloppy statement, and he was wrong for how he said it. Come on. But he also said... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me finish.. Come on. But he also said, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Let me finish. Let me finish. But he also said they didn't respect civil rights. What I think he intended to say, and clearly he wasn't good at how he said it, was that there was a debate about slavery and this nation kept slavery for economic reasons and it kept it because there wouldn't have been a nation without slavery because you wouldn't have had the South. That's the reason what left us the Civil War.

And that's the point he was trying to make for the amendment process to come in place. But, you know, it was, for him, it was a big mistake and it was, and he shouldn't have said it that way. And I hope he's apologized for saying it that way and making, and for people to understand that, you know, slavery, whenever you talk about slavery, it's the original sin and the current sin of this country, frankly, It hasn't even ended in terms of its effect. We know that. But it was an economic decision. It was a strategic decision because without it, there wouldn't have been a United States of

America because there would have been no South. That's true. The South would have left. Well, I hope you talk to him again because you just did some... I haven't talked to him. You just did some Mayor Pete speak that his communications director will not do. He has not apologized. That record has not been corrected.

They think that they can just floss their way through and ignore these things that are insulting to the people of color that he's claiming he wants to connect with. I agree with you. There's no argument there. So you're arguing to the converted there. I think he needs to connect with. I agree with you. There's no argument there. So you're arguing to the converted there. I think he needs to do that. And for him, there's been a lot of other candidates that haven't been perfect too. One. Second, I would say that he, because he's newer, as you said, because he doesn't have a long record, he needs to be more specific and particular about what he's going to do. And he has to do a better job of explaining his record. So those are some things he has to do. I'm not disagreeing.

I just say we have to be careful in this world of when one person says one thing and you look at their overall body and they have to make a system with that, we need to be careful just not to cancel them for the rest of their life. That's all I'm saying. No, no, no.

He's not canceled. I mean, I would have him over for dinner. I'm not voting for him for this nomination, and I don't want him to be the president. And this is not the first thing that he has said. His record in South Bend in terms of people of color, in terms of criminal justice reform, is lacking. And his answers about why it's lacking are lacking. His numbers on unemployment for black people, it's lacking.

And the information that his team put out was inaccurate, and then again, and then they didn't correct it. And so for me... Who's good, though? Who's good? Who's got a good record?

Yeah, and here's the thing. What I am saying about Mayor Pete is that he is lacking. What I said about other people who have left the race and are about to leave the race is that they is lacking. What I said about other people who have left the race and are about to leave the race is that they are better. What I'm saying about Vice President Biden is that he's done some things that he's already apologized for,

and I think that the apology is insufficient, but I think that he has served long enough in these communities that it's not going to make a difference. I mean, people believe in and trust him for reasons that go beyond any explaining. So, you know, it's one of those things where it's just. But what I'm not going to do is let somebody who's who's brand new. I mean, baby just still needs a diaper change. I'm not going to allow for that kind of jumping across people who have served and served and served

who are not making these mistakes. He's not running for mayor anymore. He's running for president of the United States. So there has to be a different level of accountability. And for all these folks out there, the Kamala is a cop folks, you know, the people ignoring Booker, the people who are writing off women who have been running. Uh, hello?

What about, what about Pete? I'll actually agree with you on that. I think there was a different standard. And I do think there is something going on right now because there is such a fear and fog with Trump that people, and I think wrongly, have in their mind, and this is a lot of black people, by the way, in their mind that in order to beat Trump,

it requires us to have another white man to beat Trump, and I don't think that's the case. But I do think that's what a lot of people are positioned in their mind. And it's a lot of black people that are. Bottom line is this here. I think what is... I think what helps a Pete Buttigieg,

what helps Amy Klobuchar, is the fact that the first two states that vote are nearly all white states. White, white, white. And this is where I agree 100% with Hulu and Castro. And this is not specific to any one candidate, but I do believe it's important that when you come out of the gate,

if the first two states are so critical that determine folks stay in or drop out, again, I go back to Senator Kamala Harris. It boiled down to what was she looking like in Iowa and New Hampshire? And this is where Democrats, and just so everybody understands something here, there is nothing written in stone

that says that the first two primary states must be Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, I think Iowa, though, Iowa and New Hampshire, one, I think it's Iowa, I think they have it in their state constitution. And their secretary of state has said it doesn't matter when any other state announces their deal, they are going to move theirs up.

But here's the deal, though. The Democrats don't have to abide by those rules. Remember in 2008, when Florida and Michigan moved their primaries up and against the rules of the Democratic Party, the Democrats said, fine, y'all can go and have your primary. We're not going to count your delegates. Obama didn't run in those states.

Hillary Clinton, she won Michigan, won Florida, tried to get those delegates reinstated, and the DNC said no. I dare say in 2024, if a Democrat does not win this November, the Democrats must change their rules and say, sorry, Iowa and New Hampshire, you're no longer going to be king of the hill. If y'all want Iowa and New Hampshire to be first or second, fine.

But you got to pick. I personally think if it's going to be Iowa first, South Carolina should be second. Or South Carolina should be first, Iowa second, or New Hampshire second. It doesn't matter. But what I need y'all to understand, the reason Iowa so desperately wants to be first

is not just because, okay, they get to determine coming out of the gate. But it's this. Yeah. It's this. The amount of money, the amount of money that campaigns spend on television ads, on signs, on hotel rooms, on food, on staff,

that, folks, is an economy all by itself every four years. Which, if it was California, wouldn't even happen. And that's what is going on here. And so I say Tom Perez, the Democratic Party, change those rules. The first two states should not be states that are more than 90% white. That simply cannot be the case. That is not about any one candidate. That's all of the candidates. It should be a far more diverse slate

than the first two states. As of right now, it's Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, then South Carolina. So we'll see what happens. I want to thank our panel for being here. Thank you so very much. Folks, if you want to support what we do, please go to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. This is an independent, black-owned show.

We're here five days a week. We livestream, though. We stream, though, seven days a week. Nobody else is giving you this kind of content on what we do on a daily basis. It's about us providing you with the news and information is giving you this kind of content on what we do on a daily basis. It's about us providing you with the news and information you're not going to get on cable or broadcast. They're not going to have these type of conversations,

and you're not going to see this number of black people sitting down every day together at the same time on television. It ain't gonna happen. Y'all know they don't. If it's a black story, oh, they'll find by 20 of us. Other than that,

ain't gonna happen. So please support what we do. Our goal is to get 20,000 of our followers. All of you watching right now, more than 2,400 of you on YouTube. We've got more than 600 people who are watching us right now on Facebook. And then, of course, on Periscope, we've got another 100 or so.

We want you all to support what we do because, again, we've got to make this possible. Our goal is to get $50 a year from each one of you. That's $4.19 a month, $0.13 a day. That's what is required for us to keep this thing independent. We want to be on the road. We want to be on the campaign trail. We want to be going to these places. We want to be going to where you are,

but those require resources. And just the other day, as a matter of fact, I want to show you this here because it's important. Just so you understand what we're dealing with here, just the other day I was reading a story, and Variety reported this uh that um that in the last year fox news will take in 1.32 billion dollars cnn will take in about 775 million dollars msnbc would bring in about $730 or $750 million. Collectively, folks, that is $2.6 billion.

Do you wonder why they can have hundreds of people across the globe? Do you, thousands of people, do you wonder why they can have multiple White House correspondents? This is why I've been talking about what happens. This is why you have 24-hour news channels. We're not even counting the 24-hour business networks that are also covering politics as well. We cannot afford to be uninformed. Information is indeed power,

and too many of us are uninformed. Please support what we do to make this possible in order for us to give you information that you're not getting from other sources. And look, there are people out there who have, who are on YouTube and who are on Periscope, who are on Facebook, and they're talking for five or 10 minutes

or even an hour. Are they bringing you guests? Are they covering folks? Are they having panelists? Are they having experts? That, folks, is why we've got to have our own show. Support what we do. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. All right, y'all, I got to go. I will see you tomorrow from Birmingham. A lot of times, big economic forces show up in our lives in small ways. Four days a week, I would buy two cups of banana pudding, but the price has gone up.

So now I only buy one. Small but important ways. From tech billionaires to the bond market to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastain. And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems

of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real.

Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast Season 2 on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We asked parents who adopted teens to share their journey. We just kind of knew from the beginning that we were family. They showcased a sense of love that I never had before. I mean, he's not only my parent, like he's like my best friend. At the end of the day,

it's all been worth it. I wouldn't change a thing about our lives. Learn about adopting a teen from foster care. Visit AdoptUSKids.org to learn more. Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ad Council. This is an iHeart Podcast.