#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 2.11.20 #RMU: New Hampshire primary; Bloomberg under fire for stop-and-frisk; Black Agenda released

Episode Date: February 16, 2020

2.11.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: New Hampshire primary; Mike Bloomberg under fire for stop-and-frisk; Black Agenda released; Lawmakers in DC set to vote on statehood; Arkansas school resource officer who choked a black student has been suspended. #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 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. 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. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up. See, retirement is the long game. We got to make moves and make them early. Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position.

Pre-game to greater them. Let's put ourselves in the right position, pregame to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispreetirement.org, brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. Thank you. Today is Tuesday, February 11, 2020. Coming up on Roland Martin, unfiltered voters in New Hampshire going to the polls in his primary day the question is will Senator Bernie Sanders notch a second consecutive win well first of all Iowa really don't count they know what the hell they were doing the first time uh and uh how will uh Pete Buttigieg Elizabeth Warren Joe Biden and Klobuchar and the others form we'll talk about that also. Rough day for Michael Bloomberg. An audio clip posted of him talking about black men being slammed up against the wall. Part of stopping the frisk.

His campaign not too particularly happy. We'll talk to the brother who actually uncovered this video as audio. Plus, we'll read for you the statement from Bloomberg himself speaking of having to answer questions about criminal justice reform. Man, Sonny Hobson really put it to Amy Klobuchar on The View today. Wait until we play that for you. Also, folks, lawmakers are set to vote on D.C. statehood for the first time in 25 years.

What is the black agenda for the candidates? We'll talk to Alicia Garza as they unveil the black agenda. Also, the Arkansas School of Resource officer who choked a black student has been suspended. Folks, got a jam-packed show for you. It's time to bring the funk on Roller Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. He's got it.

Whatever the mess, he's on it. Whatever it is, he's got the spook, the fact, the fine. Martin Unfiltered. He's rolling. It's Uncle Roro, y'all. It's rolling, Martin. Rolling with rolling now. He's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best. You know he's rolling, Martin. Now. Martin. Voters in New Hampshire at the polls today, folks, voting for the Democratic presidential candidates.

But all the talk today is about Michael Bloomberg, who is not, of course, on the ballot in New Hampshire, but he is certainly on the minds of lots of people. After a newly released audio recording of the former New York City mayor reveals him publicly claiming that cops across the country could just use a Xerox description to identify black men suspected of committing crimes. He also admitted that a stop and frisk policy targeted minority kids in minority neighborhoods. Here is that audio. and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities, 15 to 25. That's true in New York, it's true in virtually every city. And that's where the real crime is. You've got to get the guns out of the hands

of the people that get killed. So you've got to be wondering, spend the money, put a lot of cops in the street, put those cops where the crime is, which means in the minority neighborhoods. So this is one of the uninfected and tended consequences is people say, oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.

Yes, that's true, why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that's true, why we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them against the wall and press them. And then they start, they say, oh, I don't want that.

I don't want to get caught. So they don't bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home. Folks, this was a statement released today by Mike Bloomberg. First of all, that audio was uncovered by journalist Benjamin Dixon. We'll talk to him in a moment. But here's the statement from Mike Bloomberg. Go to my iPad, please.

February 11, 2020. President Trump's deleted tweet is the latest example of his endless efforts to divide Americans. I inherited the police practice of stop and frisk, and as part of our effort to stop gun violence, it was overused. By the time I left office, I cut it back by 95%, but I should have done it faster and sooner. I regret that and I have apologized, and I have taken responsibility for taking too long to understand the impact it had on black and Latino communities. But this issue and my comments about it do not reflect my commitment to criminal justice reform and racial equity. I believe we need to end mass incarceration

and during my tenure reduced incarceration by 40% and juvenile confinement by more than 60%. We created the Young Men's Initiative to help young men of color stay on track for success, which President Obama built on to create My Brother's Keeper. And we overhauled a school system that had been neglecting and underfunding schools in black and Latino communities for too long. In contrast, President

Trump inherited a country marching towards greater equality and divided us with racist appeals and hateful rhetoric. The challenge of the moment is clear. We must confront this president and do everything we can to defeat him. The president's attack on me clearly reflects his fear over the growing strength of my campaign. Make no mistake, Mr. President, I am not afraid of you and I will not let you bully me or anyone else in America. Between now and November, I will do everything I can to defeat you, whether I am on the ballot or not. Joining us right now, again, is the man who last night around 8 p.m. released this audio recording, got his hand on the transcripts. Benjamin Dixon, he is host of the Benjamin Dixon Show podcast.

Benjamin, it's interesting because today people have been saying, oh, this guy is a big-time Bernie Sanders supporter. But that doesn't negate, though, uncovering of the audio. First of all, when were you made aware of this audio and the transcripts? Because, and explain to people exactly where it came from. Where was he speaking when this was recorded? Right, so this was 2015 at the Aspen Institute.

Bloomberg requested immediately afterwards that this audio, or rather rather the video be blocked according to the Aspen Times. So he knew as soon as he spoke it, that it was problematic. So let me hold you right there. So the Aspen Institute, typically those sessions are on the record. So you're saying after he spoke, then he said, hey, do not put that out. Yes. According to the Aspen Times, he made the request directly of the Aspen Institute. And their justification was that they usually acquiesce to whatever the guest speaker asked for. And so no video of it was ever recovered. However,

someone in the audience recorded it on their phone surreptitiously. So someone recorded that and did that person reach out to you? I mean, how did you come across this recording? Yeah, actually, Roland, it was online. It's been online for five years. I was just doing my regular daily research for my podcast. I came across it through a chain of links, just following the information. I read a couple of transcripts that he said some things that were damning in terms of the black community and gun rights. And I followed that to the Aspen Times. And then I just continued searching until I found the audio, the hour-long audio that's been on YouTube for five years now. So when you hear these other outlets, there was somebody who was on CNN who was critical of you, this was just basic reporting. Yeah, extremely basic. There

was no conspiracy. There was nothing planned, right? I mean, it quite literally fell into my lap, but you know, it fell into my lap because I did some basic research and CNN, you know, they called me out about it, asking questions about my motivations. My motivations was my daily work that I do on my podcast, and I found this audio, cleaned it up. I did the transcript. I did type up the transcript and put the video together, but those are his words. What do you make of his statement? I saw some of your tweets, and you said simply this statement is not good enough.

No, it's simply not good enough because if you listen to what he said at Aspen in 2015, there is a depth. He has a deeply held belief in terms of young black men. The way he said it, the way it flowed freely from him, he really believes this. And that's not commensurate with his apology in 2019 in December when he began his presidential campaign or with what he said today, trying to blame it on Donald Trump. Now, I agree, Donald Trump is a preeminent threat and we need to vote him out of office, but these words were by Michael Bloomberg, not Donald Trump.

He apologized in December during an appearance at the church of Pastor A.R. Bernard, but as late as January of 2019, he was defending stop and frisk. Absolutely. This is, and that's the thing that this statement really reveals, right? It reveals his philosophy, what he believes with regards to young black and brown men, but it also reveals his governing principle, right? Instead of addressing the underlying reasons there's crime, instead of exploring it, addressing poverty, he sends in $8 billion worth of police officers, which he says in the Fuller clip, $8 billion that they spend a year. And so his governing principle is to send in the forces

instead of exploring how we can eradicate crime through eradicating poverty. And so this is really the type of mentality that I believe he would take to the White House. So it's problematic and it doesn't match up with his, you know, it's a half-hearted apology that he gave us. Well, it's also interesting, again, when you look at this in terms of what he said, that, and others are also saying that, well, we don't know the full context. So the question is this year, will the Aspen Institute release the full speech? They recorded it.

So clearly that was a recording. Right, right. There's a full recording. There is the full 45-minute speech that's on YouTube. I made sure to give the proper context in the clips that I cut up because I'm like anyone else. I get tired of videos that are taken out of context.

But the context is there. He's explaining the justification for why they arrest young men. They arrest young men because that's where they send all the police. They send all the police there because that's where all the crime is. It's fully in context in terms of the conversation of justifying stop and frisk. So here's what's interesting. When I look at this statement here again, this is the quote. I inherited the police practice of stop and frisk.

By the time I left office, I cut it back 95%. He left office December 31st, 2013. Yet in August of 2013, a federal judge ruled stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. So he gives the impression in his statement that he made the judgment to pull back stop and frisk because of criticisms when in fact it was a federal judge who declared stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. So it wasn't voluntarily him reducing it. It was the court saying it's unconstitutional. Right. And Roland, as you mentioned, he defended stop and frisk all the way up until the point he decided to run for president. And so now he's on, he's running for president. We get it. He's pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign advertisements all across the country.

He's portraying himself as the person who can beat Donald Trump. Um, but we still have to ask the question, can he really beat Donald Trump? When guy with a podcast in an hour was able to pull up this kind of information? Imagine what the GOP is going to do to him when they have a billion dollars behind their campaign against them. He has questions to answer about this. And I think he is able to apologize. I'm not saying he's not redeemable, but the apology does not match up to the depth of his philosophical worldview with regard to young black men that we saw in that video and that audio clip. Here's also what I find to be interesting. And again, this is just this is just basic stuff that we do as journalists. So he says again, he pulls it back and turns it by 95%. Yet, if you actually read the New York Times

story, okay, and I'm reading here, and this is for all the people who are listening and watching, I want you to hear this. The judge in this case was Shira Shineland, okay. Here's a paragraph here that I think is important. Uh, in her 195 page decision, judge Shineland concluded that the stops would soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, as well as the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. This is the New York Times, folks,

and the story is dated August 12, 2013, for folks who are following along. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg angrily accused the judge of deliberately denying the city, quote, a fair trial, unquote, and said the city would file an appeal. Striking a defiant tone, Mr. Bloomberg said, quote, you're not going to see any change in tactics overnight, unquote. He said he hoped the appeal process would allow the current stop and frisk practices to continue through the end of his administration because, quote, I wouldn't want to be responsible for a lot of people dying. This is on August. This is the story dated August 12, 2013. His term ends December 2013.

So here was a man, again, in his statement. He says, I inherited the police practice of stop and frisk. And as part of our effort to stop gun violence, it was overused. By the time I left office, I cut it back by 95%. is quoting him in August of 2013 angrily defending it and saying he wants it to continue. Where is the truth here? Is it in this new statement

or is it in Michael Bloomberg what he said when the judge made her decision? Right. You can tell from his response to the judge that this is something that was near and dear to him. That's confirmed with the audio that we released. This is something that flows from him as a principled philosophy of what he believes, how he believes, how he looks at young black men, how he looks at young brown men, and particularly how he thinks the government should be used to rectify the situation. This is what he believes. And it

sneaks out. And the question is, is to see he distracted Donald Trump, what became a distraction today. That's what Donald Trump is a master of. Right. But the real question that Michael Bloomberg needs to answer is, does he still believe these things or does he repudiate his old statements? The thing for me, let me read some more from the New York times piece. I just want to get your response. The judge found that for much of the last decade, patrol officers had stopped innocent people without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Right. But her criticism went beyond the conduct of police officers. In this 195-page ruling, she wrote this. I also conclude that the city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner, citing statements that Mr. Bloomberg and the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, have made in defending the policy. Here is a judge, and then she later says, if officers believe that the behavior described

above constitutes furtive movement that justifies a stop, then it is no surprise that stops so rarely produce evidence of criminal activity. She talked about the human toll of these unconstitutional stops, saying that the plaintiffs testified in terms of their feelings, their beliefs about the cops. She characterized, according to the Times, she characterized Eastop, quote, as a demeaning and humiliating experience. No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life. Again, I'm reading this and then I'm juxtaposing it to this statement today after you reveal this audio. And I'm sorry, in real time, we are literally getting an understanding of exactly what Michael Bloomberg thought and felt. Right. Right. And that's the reason he asked for this video to be blocked, according to the Aspen Times, because he knew this reveal this was too revealing in a moment of of improvising,

being extemporaneous in his speech. He revealed who he really was, what he really believes, as well as what you identified in terms of the judge. She was able to use their own words against them. So it's not really enough. this apology, this apology tour to become the president of the United States. It's convenient. But the real question is, does he still believe it? Because he has not addressed that yet. His words have betrayed him in that court case, and his words have betrayed him in the Aspen Institute audio. What do you think Michael Bloomberg needs to do next? You don't want to ask me that, but he, at a bare minimum, at a bare minimum, he needs to give a full-throated apology that reflects a person who has thought as much about the problem he created as he thought about

his worldview in terms of looking at young black men, right? He put a lot of thought into how he views black men, and he put a lot of thought in terms of how the government should approach those black men. So if he wants to continue in this presidential campaign, he needs to put a whole hell of a lot more thought into his apology than blaming Donald Trump for it. All right, Benjamin Dixon, I surely appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Good work. Thanks for having me. All right, then I want to bring in my panel right now, folks, to talk about this and some other issues. Joining me, Mustafa Santiago Ali, of course, work with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Glad to have him here. Also, Kelly Bethea, communication strategist, again, responding, responding in 2013 to what that judge wrote. Mustafa, I want to start with you. Clearly, the Bloomberg campaign, clearly they are in damage control. He has provided these various statements. As I have said repeatedly, that what has to happen here is this, he simply cannot think that this is going to go away. Releasing a statement or releasing commercials is not going to make it go away. Michael Bloomberg, if he wants to be taken seriously,

he already spent $350 million. Michael Bloomberg is gonna have to sit down with black media, black journalists, whole town halls to look black people in the eye and explain why he's saying this now in 2020 when we heard very clearly where he stood in 2013. And people are going to have to believe that there's actually been some evolution

and some growth and some soul searching and some repentance for some of the things that have happened in the past. He should come on this show. He should come on other shows and sit down with a significant amount of time and talk about how he has grown, if he has, if he expects folks to actually believe him. Everybody, all these candidates

are running around the country. So he's going to have to invest some time in those various states, in communities of color, sitting down. If I was him, it'd be tough. I'd go into some barbershops. I would go to town hall meetings and actually spend the resources to pull folks together. And I know you go into barbershops, people are going to light you up for some of the things that you did. But I think that the reason this is important, Kel, is because what we're dealing with

is this moment of reckoning. What we're dealing with right now is that when we talk about these candidates, whether it's Joe Biden in the 1994 crime bill, whether it's, and we're gonna play in a second, Senator Amy Klobuchar having to deal with her record as a prosecutor, Pete Buttigieg when it comes to the criticisms

of his role operating as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana and police departments and the African Americans. They are going to have to deal with this moment of reckoning and forget trying to sit here and bring up Donald Trump who has his own issues

and I'm going to deal with that in a second but that's what they're going to have to do. I personally do not see how Bloomberg can come back from this effectively, mainly because unlike the other candidates, this happened at the end of Bloomberg's term in his mayorship. So there's no way for him at this particular point in time to rectify that. So, for example, when you want to talk about Biden's history of criminal reform or Amos Klobuchar's remarks or even Buttigieg's remarks and policies, they have evidence of actions that they have done to rectify their wrongs, because whatever they did was after those remarks and those bills that came about. With Bloomberg, he's on the campaign trail.

He's not mayor of New York anymore. There's nothing that he can do outside of an apology campaign to possibly change anybody's mind. And right now, after listening to that tape, I don't see the difference between him and 45 putting out full-page ads of the exonerated five. Like, that is the exact same type of rhetoric that had 45, you know, being completely biased in the media and whatnot. Like, this was not just a remark that he did.

This was not just, you know, a thought in his head. He came up with a strategy at Aspen Institute of perpetuating an already flawed but existing school-to-prison pipeline, stopping frisk procedures, inherently racial bias that is embedded in police policy. Like, he perpetuated all of that in his remarks. So this wasn't just a remark. This wasn't some off-the-hand statement. This was a strategy

that he didn't come up off of until a court said that he had to. So I don't know how he can come back from this. One of the issues here, Malik, is that they increased stop and frisk as crime was going down. You would think that

if crime is going down, you are limiting stop and frisk. That's not what they did. So many problems that I have with this. One of those is the fact that it kind of reminded, well, two things. So when listening to him, I thought super predator.

The other thing that I thought is that it was almost like an all lives matter moment in his statement that he gave. Instead of addressing the comments at the beginning of it, like, I don't know who's advising him. I don't know if this is just his personal ego or who is advising him. You know, the mayor from D.C., you know, probably could have told him something different since she endorsed him. But at the beginning of your statement, you talk about Donald Trump. You don't say, hey, I realize that, you know, I'm at a different place. This was at a different time. You don't mention your comments until the end of your statement.

And then you follow up with more talking about Donald Trump. The other problem that I have with this is that he made these comments after he was no longer in office. So it's not like he was sitting there in the middle of this, debating it, having an intellectual conversation, a good give and take. He made this two years after he left office, which meant that he believed everything that he did while he was in office. And two years after. Yeah, because you're defending it even after you left office. So I kind of agree with Kelly on this. I don't see how he comes back.

Yes, there are criticisms that you can make about people who are prosecutors. There were criticisms that we had about Kamala Harris. There are criticisms that you can make about Klobuchar. But his comments, I mean, he's talking about throwing people up against the wall two years after he was in office, after he was no longer in office. But it's deeper than that. It's deeper than that.

So just let me add this real quick, Roland. So, you know, whether it is a billion dollars or a hundred million dollars that was additionally given to the police force in New York, if you want to eradicate crime, if you want to change the dynamics that are happening, then you have to make investments inside of those communities. Those dollars could have very easily been changed, and they would have gotten positive results out of it. And here's the other thing that just gets me sometimes. We create this false narrative that it is African-Americans and Latinx folks who are the ones who are doing the crime.

When I grew up in Appalachia, there was less than 1% people of color, but there was all kinds of crime that was happening, and it was associated with poverty, and if you wanted to address it, you could make change, and he didn't have to go any further than outside of New York and go to upstate New York to parts where there are very little or very small numbers of people of color where he could find out that there was still significant crime happening where they did not have stop and frisk as their answer to addressing the issue my other what is go ahead oh my other issue um about this that really really got to me but it aside from everything but the fact that he basically said you can just put it on a piece of paper and like xerox it first of all we had a whole thing in baltimore city um where uh that was basically told uh through the doj that you can't do that

i don't know if anybody recalls that consent decree from doj after the freddie gray uprising where we found uh forms just like like what Bloomberg is talking about in Baltimore City that the police department was using up there for crimes such as this and how detrimental and damaging that was to the city. So I can only imagine what it was like in New York, people using those forms, if they were ever used. I sincerely believe that they were, whether we find them or not. But this, again, it was a strategy. It was not a remark.

This was a strategy. And I'm speechless. Well, let me, first of all, let me, the Trump folks obviously jumped on this Donald Trump, retweeted something, but then he deleted that tweet, I guess probably after he got exposed himself, because his campaign, Brad Parscale and others out there, and I wish, we have some issues with my HDMI line here, so I want to play this video for you of uh brad being on with dana perino when

she challenged him because this is what donald trump said in 2016 quote i would do stop and frisk i think you have to we did it in new york it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and you know you really help people sort of change their mind automatically i remember so the trump administration i remember that cannot all of a sudden try because they're sitting here trying to amplify this whole thing oh bloomberg is a racist liberals should be outraged what he's had to say that's like the clan trying to say to a neo-Nazi, look at them, don't look at us. Donald Trump has absolutely no room to talk about anything about Bloomberg's comments when Donald Trump himself believes in stop and frisk.

When he said he wanted to implement stop and frisk nationally, after, y'all Trump said this in 2016 2013 I told you three years earlier a federal judge rules stop and frisk unconstitutional so what Donald Trump said and what Bloomberg also was

endorsing was a policy that was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Let me know if you have the video from that article in 2013. Guys, I need you to pull it up, please. It's a minute and 27 seconds. It's a video of Mike Bloomberg defending Stop and Frisk. This obviously,

folks, and the reason this is such a huge issue, because look, Bloomberg lays out his criminal justice plan. He lays, he goes to Tulsa, lays out his economic plan. But the problem is when you as a politician, you don't actually learn from your mistakes. There are people who have made decisions, they say, you know what, I made a mistake voting for the Iraq war. Joe Biden has not been pressed in a single debate, not one debate about the 1994 crime bill. Now, I don't know what the hell the other candidates are doing. Something tells me February 25th, we'll debate in Charleston, South Carolina, and I'll be there. Something tells me he's going to get asked about 1994 crime bill. But he's been asked before and he's actually

defended it. That's an issue. You've heard other candidates in terms of how they have had to deal with this. In fact, I'm going to play this right now. Here, this is Amy Klobuchar. Today, she was on The View, and she was pushed by co-host Sunny Hostin regarding her record as a DA. Watch this. A Washington Post poll from last month had you with less than 0.5 percent of African-American support. That's lower than even Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He has 2 percent and I've said this often on the show you need African-American support to become the Democratic nominee. Now your tough-on-crime

approach when you were a county attorney in Minnesota is criticized for disproportionately harming black and brown people. And when I look at that, that record, you know, you failed to prosecute a single killing by the police during the eight years you headed prosecutions. And there were more than two dozen police involved killings in that period. That's just one example. How do you defend that record? Okay, well, let's start. I'll lead out to the support, but I want to start with my work as county attorney. We all know there's systematic racism in this criminal justice system. There's no doubt about that and I worked really hard when I was there and I'm proud of the work We did to go after white-collar criminals to use drug court in a big way We had a very successful drug court and we actually saw found a got a 12% decrease in incarceration rates for African Americans

And I also diversified the office, which I think is really really important But there is so much more work that we have to do. And that's why when I got to the U.S. Senate, I started working on things like the First Step Act, which we passed, which has decreased the criminal penalties and allowed some nonviolent offenders to get out of prison. And I think we have to do that in a bigger way as well. And then as for my support in the African-American community, I've always had strong support in my elections at home.

And I have a number of key leaders in the African-American community from Minnesota that have gone and campaigned for me in places like California and Iowa. And that will continue. So my challenge is to get people to know me. My message of economic opportunity, of investing in our schools, I think that matters. I think that my focus on voting rights, Sunny, I am the leader on the bill to register every kid in this country when they turn 18. I think that is going to matter. I'm the leader on the bill to get rid of gerrymandering, to get rid of voting purges, as my friend Stacey Abrams, who... But, Senator, you know, I think that your record as a prosecutor matters as well.

And when you campaigned for the Senate, you cited your prosecution of 16-year-old black teenager Mayan Burrell as an example of having been an aggressive prosecutor. And it gives me no pleasure to say this because, as you know, I was a prosecutor as well. I'm not going to use the term black teenager Mayan Burrell as an example of having been an aggressive prosecutor. And it gives me no pleasure to say this because as you know, I was a prosecutor as well. I've reviewed the facts of that case and it is one of the most

flawed investigations and prosecutions that I think I have ever seen. When you look at it, you have your homicide detective on tape offering informants 500 bucks apiece for names. When I looked at it, I also saw that Mr. Burrell's alibis were alibi witnesses were not looked at. His surveillance tapes were not looked at. I mean, how do you defend something like that to someone like me who is the mother of a black boy, a black teenager? This case would be my worst nightmare.

Well, Sunny, I'll start with this. I've been very clear. All of the evidence needs to be immediately reviewed in that case. The past evidence and also any new evidence that has come forward, I've called for that. And I think you and I both share that background. And I have always believed that a job of a prosecutor is to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. But protect the innocent has to be key. So this case involved an 11-year-old African-American girl who was shot doing her homework at her kitchen table. I got to know her family, and I worked with them. But I would say I think any prosecutor who cares about justice, and I've always been

on the side of justice, would say all evidence must be reviewed immediately. And that's what I think has to happen here. Well, you're a U.S. senator. So thank you for bringing it up. Well, you're a U.S. senator now. You're a powerful woman. What do you intend to do to right this wrong? Well, I've called for the office and the courts to review the evidence.

That is what we must do in the justice system. I've also worked extensively with the Innocence Project in my previous job, and we reviewed all the serious cases we had that involved DNA evidence. This one didn't, but we reviewed those cases. It had no gun, it had no DNA evidence, and it had no fingerprints. Are we prosecuting Amy Coverture today? Exactly. So this is a case that must be reviewed, Sunny. evidence and had no fingerprints. Are we prosecuting Amy Klobuchar today? Exactly. So this is a case that must, it must be reviewed. Sonny, I think you know that I care so much about justice and this case must be reviewed. See, perfect example. I mean, none of these people have challenged Amy Klobuchar. Now,

they, if folks went after Senator Kamala Harris and said nothing to Klobuchar, as Sonny said, she's barely, she's not even getting 1% among black people. If folks are acting like somehow she can rise, rise, rise to the top here. But this is an issue. Again, if you go back to 2016, the damage the super predators comment had on Hillary Clinton, not just amplified by Russian trolls, but also there were a lot of people who said, look, here was a problem, but also being defensive about a comment as opposed to being forthright and apologizing.

Bloomberg has apologized for the comment. The problem is that he apologized after he'd already decided he was running for president. That's the problem. If Michael Bloomberg had apologized in, so he leaves off of December 31st, 2013. If Michael Bloomberg had apologized in 2014, or 15, or 16, or 17, or 18,

or even January 2019, it would be seen differently. But the fact of the matter is, as late as January 2019, Michael Bloomberg was defending Stop and Frisk. Six years after a federal judge called it unconstitutional. Six years after all of the data had been revealed that it did not have an impact on reducing crime. That 95% of the people who were stopped

did not have anything wrong with them. And in fact, crime went down in New York after stopping Frisk ended. He still was defending it. Yeah. So I will give Klobuchar the same break

that I gave Kamala Harris. What people need to understand is that there are very few prosecutors who end up becoming president of the United States for reasons as we're seeing right now. You know, there are a lot of, you probably can go through any prosecutor's case, and I think Sonny was a little,

she did probably a little more than I think was necessary. No, she did exactly what was necessary. Because you probably can go through any prosecutor's file and pick out a case and say, this is where it was. Bemelec, Bemelec, any prosecutor's not running for president. And when you run for president, your entire record is there. And so on one hand, you cannot in debate after debate talk about this and that about criminal justice reform and not own up to your own past. And so by pressing her, Sonny did exactly what she was supposed to do.

But as in the fact, Sonny did what too many of these debate moderators have not done and these other journalists have not done, is to challenge her. They were, the same debates when they challenged Senator Kamala Harris. On her record, Klobuchar was standing on the exact same stage.

And not a single question was directed towards her about her record as a DA. Yeah, but my point is, is that I give her a break for the same reasons that I gave Kamala Harris a break, because they're both prosecutors. And so, as I said, there are many, you can probably pull anything from any prosecutor's record and say, this is where I think that you were flawed or you did something that was to the disadvantage of black people. That part is actually true. I do think that she needs to be questioned on it. I don't think it's unfair for her to actually be questioned on these things. I just think when it comes to the role of a prosecutor, and in fact, even defense attorneys

for that matter. Go ahead, Kelly, go ahead. This goes beyond just the questioning of prosecutors. I understand your point that, you know, and I come from law, so I understand prosecutors have a very difficult job. They have to make very difficult decisions on behalf of, you know, not just one client such as the defense attorney, but the entire state or whatever jurisdiction they're representing. However, what I will say, especially when it comes to the debate stage, these moderators are really handling these candidates with kid gloves in the sense that they just, it's like they are also somehow the PR team

for these individual candidates so that they will look in the best light against 45. I believe that. I believe that. Because it's no question that the Democratic Party wants to defeat 45 for this election. So what are they going to do to try and just have a soft on-ramp for that strategy to take place and actually succeed? Don't ask difficult questions because everybody on that stage has something that is going to be debatable.

And what's happening right now is we are now, you know, nearing November and people need these tough questions asked. And then what happens? You get something like this on The View, something that should have been asked and answered a year and a half ago when everybody was, you know, coming on and doing their little soft campaigns on The View, something that should have been asked and answered a year and a half ago when

everybody was, you know, coming on and doing their little soft campaign speeches and stuff like that. This would have been rectified by now. I want to play this here before I go to Mustafa. I want to play this here. This is what Michael Bloomberg, again, had to say in August of 2013 after the federal judge declared Stop and Frisk unconstitutional. So we can get the audio straight, guys. Let me know when it's ready, okay? Because, again, the reason this is important is because when you are in the moment, Mustafa, you're speaking truthfully. You're not, oh, after, you know, I reduced it by the end of my term, whatever.

No, Michael Bloomberg was adamant. We're going to continue to do this. Right. He's speaking from his heart at that time. There was no communications director. There was no press release that he was reading from. He was saying how he actually felt about what he was instituting and what his true views were about the people who this enforcement set of actions and policies was focused on. So he was very clear with folks at that time. And, you know, you know, every time we see somebody run for office, all of a sudden they want to clean it up. Be honest about who you are. Let the country see

exactly how you feel about these things so they can make the decision. Can I just offer this very quickly? One of the reasons, to your point about why other candidates may not be doing it, I'm sure all of us watched the debates. Remember, even in, I think, the first or second debate and subsequent debates, when the candidates attacked each other, I remember Kamala Harris had a moment where she was the adult in the room. Well, we shouldn't do this to each other. Our focus is Donald Trump. Cory Booker had another moment. Our focus should be Donald Trump.

We shouldn't be attacking each other. Donald Trump is the one. So that actually could be part of the reason. Yeah, everybody's having a united front on, you know, somebody from the Democratic Party becoming president, as opposed to 45. And low key, that's an issue, because it should be the best candidate

representing us as Americans being the president. as opposed to 45. And low key, that's an issue because it should be the best candidate representing us as Americans being the president. But we don't believe it is 45 and therefore it should be somebody else. All right. Here's the again, this is Bloomberg in 2013. The judge made it clear she was not at all interested in the crime reductions here or how we achieved them. In fact, nowhere in her 195-page decision does she mention the historic cuts in crime or the number of lives that have been saved. She ignored the real-world realities of crime, the fact that stops match up with crime statistics, and the fact that our police officers on patrol, the majority of whom are black, Hispanic, or members of other ethnic or racial minorities, make an

average about less than one stop a week. And even though the plaintiff's own expert found that about 90% of the stops have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, and another 5% may well have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, and another 5% may well have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, the judge still wants to put the NYPD into receivership based on the flimsiness of evidence in a handful of cases. No federal judge has ever imposed a monitor over a city's police department following a civil trial. The Department of Justice, under Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, never, not once, found reason to investigate the NYPD.

But one small group of advocates and one judge conducted their own investigation, and it was pretty clear from the start which way it would turn out. And this was- Say, no, this was the day the judge made the decision. In 13? Yes, in August. This New York Times story is dated August 12, 2013,

and that was Michael Bloomberg addressing the media, chastising a federal judge for her ruling, slamming the individuals who filed the lawsuit, calling it flimsy evidence when we now know that without a doubt, their evidence was absolutely strong. And the only thing flimsy was his defense and the defense of Commissioner Kelly in supporting stop and frisk. And see, this is why I keep saying, folks, Michael Bloomberg's campaign has a major problem now. I mean, not just because of the previous stuff, not even just because of this audio that Benjamin has, Nixon released. The problem now is we have to judge how you felt in that very moment and how six years passed and you said, six years, so he left office in December 2013.

So six years and five months went by before he apologizes. And then says, oh, I was wrong. But you weren't wrong for six years. You were defending him for six years. And to listen, to listen, so I'm going to do this here. I need y'all to cue up, I need y'all to cue up the audio that Ben Dixon released.

I need you to cue that up, please. I need you to cue that up. So I'm going to play again for you. So go right back to my iPad right now. Go. The judge made it clear she was not at all interested in the crime reductions here or how we achieved them. In fact, nowhere in her one hundred and ninety five page decision does she mention the historic cuts in crime or the number of lives that have been saved. She ignored the real-world realities of crime, the fact that stops match up with crime statistics, and the fact that our police officers on patrol, the majority of whom are black, Hispanic,

or members of other ethnic or racial minorities, make an average about less than one stop a week. And even though the plaintiff's own expert found that about 90 percent of the stops have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, and another five percent may well have been conducted appropriately and lawfully, the judge still wants to put the NYPD into receivership based on the flimsy flimsiness of evidence in a handful of cases. No federal judge has ever imposed a monitor over a city's police department following a civil trial. The Department of Justice under Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama never, not once, found reason to investigate the NYPD. But one small group of advocates and one judge conducted their own investigation, and it was pretty clear from the start which way it would turn out.

Now, I now want you to play comments that was August of 2013. Now play Michael Bloomberg at the Aspen Institute in 2015. It's true in New York, it's true in virtually every city. And that's where the real crime is. You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people who did the kill. So you've got to be wondering, spend the money from a lot of cops in the street, put those cops way out of your crime and put them in a minority neighborhood.

So this is one of the uninfected and tended consequences is people say, oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana, they're all minorities. Yes, oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana. They're all minority. Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhood. Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, oh, I don't want that. I don't want to get caught so they don't bring the gun they still have a gun but they leave it at home okay folks this is a column that john lot

wrote on foxnews.com um a few hours ago now he's a columnist for foxnews.com but john lot is also the former chief economist at the united states sentencing commission, and also the author of a number of different books. So let me go ahead and walk you through this. So this is what you talked about, that 95% piece. He wrote, the most recent data at the time his comments were made from the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report don't line up with the 95% figure. He said, according to the FBI data, among murderers whose race we knew, almost 44% were white.

FBI doesn't break down Hispanic numbers. He said, but if we assume all Hispanic murderers were white, about 23% of murderers were non-Hispanic whites. If you were to Xerox the description that Bloomberg gives, you're going to be falsely identifying a lot of minorities as criminals. Quote, Bloomberg is no more accurate when it comes to the age of murderers. It is true that young people were responsible for a disproportionate share of these crimes, but the numbers were nowhere close to what Bloomberg claims.

Just over 28 percent of murderers were between 13 and 25 years of age. About 35 percent of 13 to 25 year olds murderers were between 13 and 25 years of age about 35 percent of 13 to 25 year olds murderers were white again bloomberg chastises these activists chastises a federal judge calls they said they did their own investigation and all of a sudden you now look at it and go oh my god they were right and he was completely wrong. Again, to me, for Mike Bloomberg to move forward, it is not going to be a statement. He cannot go to Good Morning America.

He cannot go talk to Robert Roberts. He cannot go talk to Gayle King. He can't go talk to Craig Miller on NBC. Mike Bloomberg's going to have to come talk to black media. I don't even think so. Mike Bloomberg's going to have to actually do community forums in front of black people. He is not going to be able to go to the safe space of mainstream media, do a 20 or 30-minute interview, and then go, okay, I'll finish with that. Because remember the previous interview he did? I forgot which one of the networks.

Where somebody asked him the question, he went, look, I've already apologized for that. Basically, it was this whole, I'm done. Like, literally, this was like, he gave the apology in December. I think it was in January. And his response was, look, I've already apologized for that. Essentially, I need you to move on. That ain't going to fly.

And his campaign, I'm telling you, if I'm them, I'm preparing him to say, dude, you're going to have to grovel. I wouldn't even say that. I'm like, dude, your campaign is over. No. I would. It's not over. No. I would. It's not over. Well, my thing is, when it comes to the media, such as your platform,

such as other predominantly black platforms, I don't see any type of campaign or comm strategy that could reverse this. It's not over. You know what I'm saying? First of all, it's not over. If Joe Biden can be the author of the 1994 crime bill and he's running for president, it's not over. That's what I'm saying. First of all, it's not over. If Joe Biden can be the author of the 1994 crime bill and he's running for

president, it's not over. But again, with Biden, he still had policy after the 1994 crime bill that could rectify that. I understand that. Bloomberg doesn't have that. But here's the piece. First of all, it's not over. So there's no... His campaign is not over. Okay? Now,

is he going to take a hit? Yes. The question, though, is how does he now respond, Mustafa, to where this is going to be the dominant story? Because let's also understand, you've got New Hampshire today. You've got Nevada coming up, significant Latino population. You've got South Carolina.

The next debate, he's on the stage. He's on the piece. Mm-hmm. Mm. He's on the piece. Yep. So I'm sure he's probably like, damn, why did I have to qualify for it? Why did they change the rules for the debate? So now, he now is gonna get hit.

Yep. By the other candidates. It's not gonna be front and center. And he is going to have to have an explanation. Mm-hmm. Because other folks gonna do exactly what I just did. Walk through and hit play, hit play. And there are tons of other comments out there. He's got to put the work in.

And if he's not willing to do it, then his campaign won't be able to garner the support that's necessary. And he needs to just tell the truth on some of this stuff. I mean, we've already unpacked a lot of it, but most of those stops didn't come up with any guns. If he really wanted to talk about real crime, there was all kinds of crime happening on Staten Island and Long Island and right there, you know, in the financial district with all them cats who was using cocaine and they never got caught or never got clipped. So I just need him to actually have a real give us some real talk about where he is today and why he made the choices that he made before.

Can I just say this very quickly? If he does do the circuit with black media or whatever, black people have to not allow him any wiggle room to say, but Donald Trump is a racist. Hold him accountable for his own actions.

Don't let him get in front of black media and say, well, you know, but Donald Trump is a racist. Hold him accountable for his own actions. Don't let him get in front of black media and say, well, you know, but Donald Trump is so bad, too. But first of all, two things would be true at the same time. I was about to say, but don't let him do it. Don't let him do it. No, but the point I made earlier was that when he invoked Trump in his statement, I'm like, dude, that ain't gonna fly.

I mean, like, bottom line is... Yep. See, if I had, so the issue that I had, the issue that I have is an anatomy of the statement. You begin your statement by invoking Trump deleting a tweet.

Not accepting responsibility. So let me just, for the people who are on his campaign, let me just say right now, that's bullshit. Okay? That's bullshit. For anybody on the comms team, on the Michael Bloomberg team, for any African Americans on his team, somebody should have said, yo, that's some bullshit.

Okay? I'm just going to be straight up. Why am I saying that? Because the issue here is not Donald Trump deleting a tweet. Nope. The issue is what you said. And so it's a cute game in terms of trying to move to that whole point here. Like the opening line, go to my iPad,

President Trump's deleted tweet is the latest example of his endless efforts to divide Americans. No. Sorry, Michael Bloomberg. That's unacceptable. That line should be completely deleted. Now, if you wanted to start, you should have started with, I inherited the police practice of stopping the frisk.

That's what you should have started with. And then when you go to the bottom, okay? So just so we're clear here, in terms of how you unpack this, if you remove the first sentence and you go from I inherited to the black and Latino communities, y'all, he literally spent more words

in this statement trying to explain other stuff because if you go to the second paragraph now it's all about his commitment to criminal justice now you go to then then basically saying he gave the idea for my brother's keeper to obama he literally says we created the young men's initiative to help young men of color stay on track for success, which President Obama built on to create my brother's keeper.

But then, the last paragraph, in contrast, Trump, this, this, this, I'll take you on. No. You have to deal with what you said. Obama's on vacation, why and so trying to sit here and now oh you know trump this trump that uh i've done us no the reality and and this is the thing that that that is important we cannot live in an america where women who are talking about the Me Too movement

talk about the trauma that they have had to endure from men catcalling, from men making sexually suggestive comments in the workplace, from men physically sexually assaulting women, whether in the workplace, at school, at home. We got a whole lot.

We cannot talk about soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and what they're enduring on the battlefield suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and what they're enduring on the battlefield around the world, both of those cannot be ignored and are fundamentally and critically important. But what we also must deal with is the trauma inflicted on among black and brown people

who were the victims of a Xerox copy thrown up against walls, searched, accosted, found nothing. Now y'all can go. Because if you understand the trauma of black people since 1619, the trauma of being kidnapped in your homeland, the trauma of being in the slave, the hold of a slave ship. The trauma of being sold.

The trauma of seeing your family beaten and separated. The trauma of seeing individuals having their feet cut off and trying to run away. The trauma of individuals having to pick cotton and beaten and whip the trauma of black kids having to grow up and seeing mama and daddy have to step into the street when there's money when somebody white comes by the trauma of looking at somebody white and you can't look them in the eyes. The trauma of being accused of sleeping with a white woman. If you want to understand the trauma, you go down to the lynching memorial

that's in Montgomery, Alabama. You understand the trauma of Jim Crow. The trauma of just being black and you get stopped. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the trauma that Michael Bloomberg has to understand. That what was unleashed upon black people in New York City and brown people, and let me add, New York City has the largest concentration

of black people in the United States. So Michael Bloomberg, I don't care about your young men's initiative. Because Michael Bloomberg, there probably was a young black man who was going to school, who was doing the right thing, who got stopped. And that one encounter completely changed the course of his life.

We don't know what that young man did in the classroom the next day. We don't know if he tuned out. We don't know if he then began to lash out at authority because of how he was treated by a cop. See, Michael Bloomberg, that's

what you don't seem to recognize that was unleashed on African Americans. Do I believe the Michael Bloomberg campaign is over? No. But what I will say is this. This statement alone is simply insufficient. And African Americans across this country, Latinos across this country,

black parents, black mothers, black fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles deserve a so we can understand Mike Bloomberg if you have actually changed. Why am I saying that? Because right now in the White House, Mike Bloomberg is a man who took out full-page ads saying that the Central Park Five young men should get the death penalty. And Mike Bloomberg, you fought those same five young men from getting a settlement in that case.

In fact, Mike Bloomberg, you are going to have to reckon with the fact that you would not settle. And the only reason the case of the exonerated five was settled for $40 million was because you left the mayor's office. And it was Bill de Blasio, the newly elected mayor of the city of New York,

who in 2014 approved the settlement in that case. So, Michael Bloomberg, we want to see you stand up and say and call for the release of all of the depositions taken in the Central Park five case. We want to see what was stated in those depositions when it came to that case. Because you, Michael Bloomberg, cannot, in a statement, criticize Donald Trump when on this very issue, you and Donald Trump were boozing buddies.

You defended stop and frisk. Donald Trump wanted stop and frisk. Donald Trump wanted stop and frisk. Donald Trump doubled down on Central Park Five. You fought their settlement. And you can say all these other different things about how I've done this and done that. That is no different than a man who beats his wife and then brings her flowers and buys her gifts. You are going to have to speak to this issue. Because right now there's a liar sitting in the Oval Office.

And we've got to know for real whether or not you have truly learned from your mistakes or if you're simply making the political calculus and you hope that our disdain for Trump is strong enough to overlook what you said and did. Going to break when we come back. Talk with Alicia Garson about the black agenda next to Roland Martin Unfiltered. You wanna check out Roland Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

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

A life is not more important than others, except in the impact it has on other lives. American professional baseball player Jackie Robinson. All right, folks, are you looking to enhance your leadership skills? Are you trying to enhance those on your team as well? Well, if so, you should join Dr. Reverend Dr. Jackie Hood Martin for her 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.

The offer expires February 28th. To register or start the course online, go to www.livetolead.com forward slash Leesburg. That's www.liv, L-I-V-E, the number two, lead, L-E-A-D.com forward slash Leesburg. All right, folks, we've talked about this campaign. The issues that are important to African Americans are critically important. And there are a lot of people out there who have all kinds of different ideas, what they should talk about. Well, Alicia Garza and her group, they've actually been working on doing a survey. We had her on before talking about the black agenda. She's, of course, the principal at the Black Features Lab.

And so they released this report on Monday. And it's really interesting because it lays out exactly what it is in terms of the issues that people care about, the things that matter to them as well. And so if we pull it up, I want to pull up as well, because, again, it's a really, really great and thorough 30-page report that is called the Black Agenda for 2020. And, again, what I love about it is that they spent time talking to 30,000 people across the country, black people. This isn't one of those deals where, you know, like it always happens, you know, they'll like, okay, you know, you talk to different group and you get other folks views about what we care about. No, it's African-Americans as well. Go to my iPad, please. And so this is, of course, what it looks like here is called the Black Agenda 2020 Black to the Future Action Fund. And in this particular piece here, they talk about, again, make black people powerful in the economy, our society, our democracy, our communities, our families, and the legal system as well. And so as you go through this report,

Black Agenda 2020 translates the black census results into a policy platform that educates elected officials, policymakers, and legislators, and challenges them to take positions that are beneficial to our communities. And then we go through here. Here's what's interesting. 52% of black census respondents believe that politicians don't care about black people. Also, you go on here, black people in this survey said race matters. Government must be held accountable.

The black agenda is also a progressive agenda. And so we can go through here. And so some of the things that were stated, remove policies that lock us out of good jobs and instead invest in the health and wealth of our communities. Confront those who conspire to steal our votes and finally build a democracy that is promised to us all. Challenge the policies and practices that leave us living sick and dying younger and deliver the care we need to live long and live well. Reject the toxic culture of white nationalism by calling it out at every opportunity and in front of every audience,

act on the climate crisis as a national priority before more of our community, then also end the use of incarceration to solve the problems of migration, poverty, and divestment and return millions of us to our families and communities. Kelly, and return millions of us to our families and communities. Kelly, so looking at this here, what this lays out again are clear policy issues that need to be implemented. Your thoughts? I mean, I know some of my friends

and I joke about having a black agenda, but this is actually legitimate. I think that these are things that not only black people need, but we all need, but specifically black people, because for so long we've been ignored for so long, we've been looked aside or just used as the token for other issues or for white people to just kind of make their way through our issues. And what do you make of it specifically when, when, when they laid out, they said, jobs, dealing with voter suppression, and then also dealing with our health, white nationalism, as well as climate crisis as well.

I mean, they're very specific in what they're laying out. No, I don't see what's wrong with it. I would add more so economic development. That was number one. So number one, that's the first thing I read, remove policies that lock us out of good jobs and instead invest in the health and wealth of our communities. And that was one of the things. Well, when I see that, when you said jobs, I think more along the lines of getting a job.

I'm talking about... No, no, no. They were talking about black entrepreneurs as well. Oh, okay. Well, then I don't see anything wrong with it. I think that that's very solid, very thorough. I would like to see if they have, you know, like a play-by-play as to exactly what they want. They do. They do. Mustafa, in fact, they say 86% of black census respondents believe, go to my iPad, it is the role of the government to solve economic problems and bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

79% favor expanding and increasing government aid for people who need it. Now, of course, Republicans will jump up and say, oh, that's not the government's job. But if you actually look at this nation and its history even present day, the role the government plays in the creation of wealth in the private sector, the private sector, Elizabeth Warren says all the time, private sector, you ain't get there all by yourself. Exactly. Exactly. This is a holistic agenda, which is exactly what we need. It talks about policies and really also talks about our tax dollars and how we should be focusing those to actually help to make real change happen inside of our communities, to spur growth, to hold people accountable, and along,

of course, with our vote and tying all that together. So we know if we vote, then we can redirect the resources to the places that they need to go and we can make sure that the policies are in place and we can also make sure that those, you know, who are elected officials understand that there is an agenda that they have to meet and we will hold them accountable. Malik, black census respondents think the government should pay reparations to African Americans for its role in the slave trade and history discrimination. Also, 90 percent of black census respondents view wages too low to support a family as a problem in the community. Eighty-five percent support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, something Donald Trump opposes and most Republicans as well. Clearly, black folks are saying, no, that should be on this agenda. Well, for the most part, most of what I heard, they're pretty much, you know, in line with

what we hear with candidates, period, when they run for office. So you know, maybe give or take a one or two, but for the most part, what we heard is something that most campaigns are part of most campaigns platform. Yeah, but one thing you have here in the Landrum Griffin Act restrictions on the ability of unions to hire some formerly incarcerated people. No. I don't hear many candidates talking about that. No, that's actually.

Also establish wage and standard boards as a mechanism to facilitate worker organizing and raise labor standards. Well, I don't know about this far as the union piece of that. But I do know even the administration is focusing on with their second chance hiring program on employing incarcerated individuals, formerly incarcerated individuals. One of the things, and I may have missed it, but I didn't hear an education component in there. I don't know if it's in here. Also, you have a housing issue, Mustafa, passed the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which increases housing affordability by controlling rent and home prices, incentivize local governments to reduce land use restrictions and drop up the cost of new home construction. What did they say about education? Right here, invest in K-12 education. They have here mandate that education funding of the federal,

state, and local levels flow equitably to school districts, dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline by eliminating zero tolerance policies and limiting the presence of police in schools. Also, eliminate the growing number of policies that require registration and surveillance of students who have received mental health care as part of K-12 school enrollment and require schools to stop using restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities. Yeah, I mean, so that, yeah, I was worried about the education piece. Well, the center here, plus they also have a whole section of the college as well. Yeah, I think that's actually a good thing.

I don't think, you know, I still don't think it's out of line with what we normally hear as far as, you know, it's good to have. This is more comprehensive. Yeah, but if you say politicians, you mean Democratic politicians, not Republicans. Well, there are things in there that even Donald Trump is focusing on, which is why I mentioned the second chance hiring. So, no, not every single bullet point is something that Republicans are focused on. But if you're talking about things as far as economic development, if you're talking about education, if you're talking about even investment, you know, entrepreneurship, those are things that Republicans generally talk about. So I don't think that that's up.

But they're saying they don't talk about it, actually do it. No, I totally agree. You know, if somebody say, well, what's the black agenda? You should be able to hand them a binder and say, here, well, there you go. Mustafa. Well, the thing that we have to also focus on is that they share that there's a significant portion of the African-American population who currently does not trust politicians, federal, state, probably on down. So, therefore, we need to make sure that these politicians are better in alignment with what African Americans are actually asking for. And that's how we change the dynamic. What's unfortunate is that a lot of, if not all, of what's on this agenda, every American needs.

Every American needs this. And it's a shame that we constantly, as black people, have to be at the forefront of putting our needs out there as if nobody else needs it. Well, black people are trying to teach America how to be America for a long time anyway. It's still frustrating, nonetheless. This ain't nothing but black people. Right, it's still frustrating.

There you go. Republicans tried to change the D.C. statehood bill to wipe out gun laws and punish any doctor in the proposed new state who failed to provide medical care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion. The amendments came during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform Committee meeting to consider a bill that would make D.C. the 51st state. Here's some of what took place in the hearing today. Along with the citizens of the District of Columbia, I greatly appreciate the hearing we held last September and this markup today

appropriately the same week we celebrate the birthdays of President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, two champions of the rights of the residents of the District of Columbia. This has been a historic year for D.C. statehood, culminating in today's markup. When I introduced the bill on the first day of Congress, I did so with a record 155 original co-sponsors. Today, the bill has a record 223 co-sponsors, enough to pass in the House with co-sponsors alone. Moreover, we also have a record 35 co-sponsors of the Senate version of the bill, and we are especially grateful to its sponsor, Senator Tom Carper. Over 100 national organizations with strong records of getting bills passed in the Senate are already preparing to help us take the fight to the Senate. Last March, the House passed H.R. 1, Representative Saul Baines for the People Act,

which contained extensive findings supporting D.C. statehood, marking the first time in American history either chamber of Congress has endorsed D.C. statehood. Polls show that most Americans think the residents of the nation's capital have the same rights they enjoy. Even some members of Congress may not know that the district ranks first in the nation in federal taxes paid to support the national government, making the residents of the nation's capital the only full taxpaying Americans not treated as equal citizens. The district pays more in federal taxes than 22 states. D.C. has a higher per capita personal and gross national product than any state. The district's unequal status can be rectified only by our statehood build. The

district's local economy has become one of the strongest in the nations. Today, the district is more than equal to states financially. Its $15.5 billion budget is larger than the budget of 12 states. For two decades, the district has had balanced budgets and clean audit opinions. Moody Investor Service has given the district's general obligation bonds its highest rating of AAA. Its per capita personal income expenditures are higher than those of any state and its total personal consumption expenditures are greater than those of seven states. The population of the district continues to grow. A year ago, passing 700,000 for the first time since 1975. The population of the district is larger than that of Wyoming

and Vermont and is in league with seven states that had a population under one million in the last census. D.C. residents have fought and died in every American war, including the war that led to the creation of the nation, the Revolutionary War. The district suffered more casualties than a number of states during the wars of the 20th century, but I could not vote on final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act last year. The veterans of the nation's capital have helped get voting rights for people throughout the world, but continue to come home without those same rights or even the same rights as veterans with whom they served. Our statehood bill is clearly constitutional. Congress has the authority to

make Washington-Douglas Commonwealth a state under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1, its power to admit new states to the Union, combined with its Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 power over the seat of government. The Congressional Research Service and even conservative legal scholar and practitioner, Veer Dinh, who served in the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration, have issued expert opinions

that H.R. 51 is constitutional. Congress can carve out areas where D.C. residents live as the 51st state and reserve other areas as the national capital. Congress has two choices. It can continue to exercise undemocratic authority. Over 700,000 American citizens who live in the nation's capital, treating them, in the words of Frederick Douglass, as aliens, not citizens, but subjects. Or it can live up to the nation's promise and ideals in taxation without representation and pass the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. Mustafa, it's about time. This

makes no sense. D.C. should be a 51st state. Most definitely. Residents of the Washington, of the District of Columbia, are seen as less than full citizens. We're supposed to have one man or one woman and one vote, and it's time for the District of Columbia to actually have that. You used to have the plates on the presidential limousine, Malik. Obama and Trump took them off. Yeah, so I, as a longtime resident of the District of Columbia, I am definitely for statehood. And so that people understand what having a non-voting member of Congress, non-voting

representative in Congress means is that we're pretty much similar to Guam. Our representative is the same as Guam. Now, they cannot vote on a full on full on legislation in front of the full House. If they are a member of a committee, they can vote in that committee. They can introduce legislation in that committee. But once it goes to the full house, so Eleanor Holmes Norton, who we just saw,

she will not be able to vote for, if this passes in the house, she will not be able to vote for it in the full house. And so that's essentially what it means. I'm one of those, you know, we had a taxation, we've had so many things on taxes, you know,

taxation without representation. So I am 100% for the District of Columbia having a voting member of Congress where we're actually represented and paying plenty of taxes. Yeah, absolutely. And we don't have a vote when we don't have a voice in the Senate. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

because those non-voting members that don't apply to the Senate, it's just the House of Representatives. Now, it's incredibly frustrating. I grew up here in D.C., I live here now in D.C. and it goes beyond just having representation in Congress. It's as as granular as our municipal government as well, because there are things that we have to go to Congress for that any other state would not necessarily have to. Like we have a surplus of what, like almost 300 million million that we cannot touch without congressional approval that, mind you, our own Congresswoman can't even vote for because of the lack of representation. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Our laws are contrived and complicated for no reason. And we are citizens too, and we need to start actually being citizens. We need to start enacting like it. All right, folks, the bill has been passed, and now need to start you know actually being citizens we need to start in acting like it all right folks the bill has been passed and now heads to the house all right folks Jake Perry a cannon Fairview high school resource

officer has been suspended after this video was posted of him choking a black Police Department Chief Boyd Woody said he would not tolerate this kind of misconduct from his officers. Look, we were just talking about this here in the Black Agenda Demands in that census project. Look, get these cops out of schools. Right. Yeah, so I didn't, I hate watching videos like that. And because was he suspended or fired? Which one was it? Suspended. Yeah, suspended I didn't, I hate watching videos like that. And because was he suspended or fired? Which one was it? Suspended.

Yeah, suspended or fired. You know, I don't see any reason. It kind of reminds me of Eric Garner. You know, the grabbing around the neck. I mean, that's a neck. And there is an actual trachea there. You breathe and all of that. I, I, to detain any person by grabbing them by neck, especially a child, it's just kind of unconscionable. I, I doubt that, I don't know if that's the, if that's

policy in New Jersey or not. I can't imagine that it is. Putting a baby in a chokehold? No. Since they actually suspended him, I doubt that it is. But any of those type of policies where we're restraining people, especially children, by grabbing them by their neck. You remember Eric Garner said, I can't breathe. That young man, that boy

went limp on video. Like, you saw that. And I keep saying this, you cannot be an employee such that you are representing the public and your entire job is to protect the public if you were going to do something like that to a child. And we didn't see what happened before then. It doesn't matter. No, my point is that we didn't see what happened before then. But right there,

what we're looking at right now, he wasn't a threat. But it doesn't matter. He wasn't even a threat. If he was a threat, he's still a minor. And there are tactics at play for police officers, security, anybody, to apprehend a minor such that you're not going to kill him in the process. This is attempted

murder. Because I know that he knows another way to apprehend a student. And that's not one of them. He wasn't apprehending him. I don't know. He was just grabbing him by the neck. It's disgusting. Here's the reality that chokeholds are illegal in a number of municipalities across our country. So they should definitely not be happening inside of our schools, and we need to stop having these military-style situations set up inside of schools. For children.

For children. Their children. As a matter of fact, folks, today in Chicago, a special prosecutor has indicted Justice Smollett, saying that he made up an attack that took place there. He has to report to court by February 24th. Mustafa, I want to start to court by February 24th. Mustafa, I wanna start with you. It's interesting.

You talk about what they did here. First of all, special prosecutor, Kim Fox, of course, he was the elected district attorney. They chose not to prosecute him. But this prosecutor essentially used the exact same evidence as before to go ahead and indict him. But we also know, now you're dealing with, of course,

you had the police chief who came out, you know, loud and thunderous. But we also know, now you're dealing with, of course, you had the police chief who came out, you know, loud and thunderous. He since quit, resigned, got fired, actually, by the mayor because of his old issue, whether he was having an affair, got drunk or whatever the hell, was taking medicine or whatever. And so you've got to ask yourself the question, can you actually even get a fair hearing as a result? Could Justice Smollett get a fair hearing as a result of this?

I don't think so. I think it would be very difficult considering all of the officials who've come out and said certain things and all the attention that they've placed on this case. So I think it would be very difficult for him to actually get a fair hearing. Kim Foxx gave her reasons why she chose to dispose of this case. Here's what I might find to be interesting. Her deal was like, even if we convicted him, he wouldn't go to jail. And so what ends up happening if they go forward with this

and then they still say, okay, community service? Why are they still pursuing this at all? This is such a waste of taxpayer dollars for the citizens of Chicago. How many other problems do they have where that money could be put to better use? I don't understand. I just do not understand why

they are going after this man. And also, this comes down a few weeks before Kim Fox's primary in March. Just let me add something real quick. You find over time people trying to build their careers off the names of celebrity cases. So we have to ask the question if this is another example of that. The special prosecutor, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago,

was appointed by a judge six months ago to review the evidence against Jussie Smollett and consider filing new charges. Yeah. So I don't think that, you know, I was one of those from the beginning who questioned whether or not what Jussie Smollett was saying was true. And we found out, at least by all accounts, it seemed as if he was lying. So let's agree to the fact that he was actually lying. Now, special... Hold up. First of all, we can't agree the fact that he was lying because we don't know that.

Right. Well, by all the evidence that we've seen, at least the people that he accused of the crime... Hold up, wait a minute. Hold up. We talk about Trump lying and we say he didn't benefit the doubt. But we don't have to do the Bloomberg and talk about Trump here. No, I'm not doing the Bloomberg.

What I'm saying is, how can we agree that Jussie Smollett is lying? How? Well, we don't have to agree. I'll say that Jussie Smollett is lying. Based on what? Based on the fact that people that he accused of lying, I mean, I'm sorry, the people that he actually identified as the ones

who assaulted him were the ones that the police department, or at least the prosecutor said, well, no, they weren't. Could they be lying? Very well could be, but we have to go with the evidence that we have. No, actually, we don't. We earlier talked about

the case of Amy Klobuchar, when she was a district attorney, where there was no physical evidence. There were no eyewitnesses. There was no DNA. So what you're saying is we are to believe the cops. Well, what I'm saying is, is that we still have, let's say you're all of you all are right that maybe it really did. No, no, no, no. We're not saying no one's right.

But no, I'm not saying that Justice Smollett told the truth. I'm not saying Justice Smollett lied. What I'm saying is you said let's all agree that he lied. We can't. OK, well, we don't have to agree that he that he lied. But it seems as if that's exactly what he did. If not, that means that there are still two white MAGA loving Trump supporters roaming the streets of Chicago somewhere. Maybe they're there.

I don't know. I think probably part of Smollett's problem is, is that how he handled it even after he was let out, if you will. You know, he came out and he made the statement. He was very defiant, you know, and he had people out there defending him. I actually agree with you that this very well could be a, you know, a celebrity case, someone trying to build their name out for celebrity case. But there were lots of resources that Chicago used to investigate something that we can just say was never actually proven. And there seems to be more evidence pointing to his

guilt than his actual innocence as far as what he's claiming. It was interesting, Mustafa, that a special prosecutor used some of the same cops who were involved in the initial investigation into his. That, to me, makes no sense. To me, that if you wanted to run a clean case, you would say, I'm not going to use any police officers who were involved in the first investigation and have a new set of officers essentially go back, double check their work, re-interview people as well. That's to me how you should have run this. Yeah, most definitely. You go out, get the new evidence, because evidently if you're going to bring a case back again after the former person said, well, there's

not enough here for us to do something, then you must be bringing some new information in. And we should also remind ourselves that supposedly in our country, you are innocent until proven guilty. So that should be the starting point from where we're at. Let's talk about this here, of course. That is this last story. You talk about the Trump Department of Justice, how they are putting their thumb on the scale. Roger Stone was convicted by a federal court in Florida of lying to Congress when it came to testimony regarding Donald Trump.

He was convicted. Prosecutors went to court yesterday recommending seven to nine years in prison for Roger Stone. Then all of a sudden, the William Barr, first of all, then all of a sudden, Donald Trump tweeted, this was a miscarriage of justice. Then today, the William Barr-led Department of Justice announced they were going to seek a lower sentence for Roger Stone.

What has now happened? Now, they claim that decision was made before the Trump tweet went out, which is sort of weird because why would attorneys go to court asking U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, have all quit. Aaron Zielinski worked for Robert Mueller's office. He is withdrawn from the case, resigned as special assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. OK, the other prosecutors have all quit. Jonathan Kravitz announced in a court filing he has resigned as assistant U.S. attorney. Adam Jed also withdrew from the case. And the fourth prosecutor, Michael Morando, withdrawn from the case as well. This is a tweet from Mike Scarchella. DOJ's new sentencing memo was

signed only by John Crabb Jr., acting head of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. Crabb was a longtime career prosecutor. Mallory, what does that tell you, that four career prosecutors in the Department of Justice quit over what they see as a heavy hand from William Barr and the Department of Justice. Seems like they were dissatisfied with what the Department of Justice did. Should DOJ have done it? I don't even know. Well, this is kind of new.

I don't even know what they're proposing. What are they proposing as far as his sentence? No, like I said, they proposed that Roger Stone be sentenced seven to nine years in federal prison for what he did. And the Department of Justice is saying that he should get what? The Department of Justice,

they notified the court that they'll be pursuing a lower sentence. Oh. Than the seven to nine. Even though the four prosecutors work for the Department of Justice. Yeah, I mean,

that's probably a little inside baseball. If they are unhappy with how... Inside baseball? Well, I'm saying that's probably a little inside baseball. They are unhappy with how... Inside baseball? Well, I'm saying that if they're unhappy with how their department is conducting an investigation, whether it was Roger Stone... No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, I think you missed something here.

They secured the conviction of Roger Stone. Right. They're the ones who were trying to... And now they're unhappy with the DOJ's position? No, no, no. Listen. They secured the conviction of Roger Stone. They submitted to the court that they were going to pursue

that they believe that Roger Stone should be sentenced from seven to nine years in prison. They submitted that to the court. The Department of Justice indicated, after Donald Trump tweeted, this is unfair. Oh, we're going to recommend a lower sentence for Roger Stone. So what I'm asking you is, should William Barr be interceding where clearly prosecutors who tried the case are recommending something?

He's overruling them. Yeah, I don't know how common a practice that is. It's not. This don't happen. Well, I don't know if this is a practice where the department... No, I'm telling you, this don't happen. Well, I'm just telling you I don't know. So either I'm going to sit on...

Well, now you know. What I'm saying is... This is not common practice. But I don't know what the Department of Justice practice is. So you're saying that this is something that the Department of Justice never does? No. You wouldn't have the top level person. Yeah, well, I mean, well, maybe, maybe not.

Me personally, if they, because what it seems is if it was, which is exactly what I said, they seem to have a problem with the position that the Department of Justice has taken. No, no. They work for the Department of Justice. Yeah. Their problem is that William Barr is trying to protect a Donald Trump crony and wants to lower the sentence. And where does where does William Barr. And that's why they're offended. So where does he work? Where does William Barr work at the Department of Justice? Right. That's what I'm saying. So. So isn't that isn't William Barr's position going to be the official position of the Department of Justice or those four attorneys who are now going?

Oh, I actually thought that what happens, Kelly, is you allow your prosecutors to try cases and do their jobs. But it's still the Department of Justice, though. I'm saying it's not a different department. Yeah, we know that, but go ahead. It's still the Department of Justice. Kelly, go ahead. Barr is stepping on the toes of his own employees. That's the problem.

You do not override the authority of your employees in a district in which you may have jurisdiction in theory, but the whole point of an ASA is to act on behalf of the AG and do your job. What's happening right now is the AG is overriding whatever the ASA is doing based off of rules that the AG already has in play. For the ASA. Keep in mind, Mustafa, this is the same William Barr who purposely cut short the investigation of Robert

Mueller because he wanted it to be over. Yeah. This is how it played out. Donald Trump called William Barr or they were in a meeting at the White House. Said, Roger Stone, he's a good guy. I really appreciate how he supported me over the years. It's unfortunate that his sentence is being at the length that it is. Do something about it.

Is there anything you can do to help me out? Yeah, do something about it. And that is incredibly unethical. It's unethical. Like, on every ground. Like, that does not happen. Yeah ground like that. That does not happen. Yeah. I mean, that does not happen. Me personally, I don't care enough about the Roger Stone case. This is if this is not something that the Department of Justice does and this is going

against, you know, whatever their policy has been in the past. You know, we did criticize William Barr for it, criticize Donald Trump for it. But as far as Roger Stone in this case, whether he gets seven years or whether he gets one year, I don't care. I mean, I just don't care. But criticize the department, criticize William Barr. If the criticism is warranted, criticize him. Let me tell you something right now, folks. Bottom line is this here. You have a thug in the White House.

You got a thug running the Department of Justice. What you have here is William Barr, of course, who is not serving the interests of the United States of America. He is serving as the attorney for Donald Trump, protecting one of Donald Trump's cronies in Roger Stone. Don't be shocked if they come in and say, hey, just give him six months in jail. Here's the saving grace.

The federal judge can ignore the White grace. The federal judge can ignore the White House. The federal judge can... No, no. It's not like no bigger deal, Malik, because here's the whole issue. You would hope that you have a Department of Justice

that is about justice not protecting the cronies of Donald Trump. That's not the case here. All right, folks. We appreciate everyone who's been on the show today. New Hampshire,

all the polls close in New Hampshire in about 14 minutes. And so I'll be live tweeting some of my thoughts as well. So we'll see what happens, who wins tonight. Again, we still don't know who the hell won Iowa. So, frankly, tonight is really the first state to vote. And actually, it truly is the first state to vote because the caucuses, to me, is still a joke. So I don't really care about that.

So we'll talk about that tomorrow right here in Roller Martin Unfiltered. Please support us in what we do by going to RollerMartinUnfiltered.com, join our Bring the Funk fan club. You can use Cash App, PayPal, or Square. Every dollar you give goes to support this show and what we do. Of course, we want to thank all of you who watched our live stream last night

of Susan Taylor's National Cares Mentoring Gala. We're going to be restreaming that this weekend as well. So we look forward to doing that for you. All right, folks, we shall see you tomorrow. I got to go. 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. 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. Listen to does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up. See, retirement is the long game. We got to make moves and make them early.

Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position. Pre-game to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispreetirement.org. Brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. This is an iHeart Podcast.