#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 2.4 Iowa Caucus drama; $15M suit against NAACP; TSU board meets; BAFTA called out for being so white

Episode Date: February 16, 2020

2.4.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Iowa Caucus drama; Impeachment Managers made their last pitch to the Senate; House passes bill that will help you with your credit; $15M sexual harassment suit filed against the NAACP; TSU board meets to discuss the firing of former President, Austin Lane; BAFTA called out for being so white; Ohio student expelled because his teacher said he smelled like weed. #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. Hey folks, today's Tuesday, February 4th, 2020. I'm broadcasting live from Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, where I'll be speaking in just a little bit. Coming up today on Roland Martin Unfiltered, what in the world happened at the Iowa caucuses? They had one job and they totally screwed it up. We'll give you the partial results, because we still don't know who actually won the Iowa caucuses.

The impeachment managers made their last pitch to the Senate today, but it's not looking good. Bottom line is Republicans are not going to do anything to Donald Trump. We'll show you some of the good, bad, and the ugly. The House approved a bill that will help you with your credit. We'll give you the details. Also, a sexual harassment lawsuit has been filed against the NAACP. We'll tell you what they are seeking. Today, the Texas Southern University Board of Regents, they are meeting to discuss a possible firing of President Austin Lane. Also, actor Joaquin Phoenix uses a speech at the Bathfield Awards

to draw attention to the lack of diversity in the entertainment industry. And he says to white folks, this is on us. Plus, an Ohio student is expelled because his teacher said he smelled like weed, but there was no weed. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. He's got it.

Whatever the piss, he's on it. Whatever it is, he's got the scoop, the fact, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling. Best believe he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks. He's rolling.

It's Uncle Roro, y'all. It's rolling, Martin, rolling with Roland now. Yeah, yeah, he's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best. You know he's Roland Martin now. Martin. Martin. All right, folks, let me be real clear. I absolutely despise the Iowa caucuses.

I don't believe that they should be the first in the nation to vote. I've never believed that. And then we're seeing this year exactly why that is a joke. Not only because they're more than 90% white, also caucuses are inherently screwed up. And guess what? Last night, it really got screwed up. A system for reporting votes failed to function properly and backup telephone hotlines jammed up, leading to no declaration of a winner. All of a sudden, the candidates, they all came out and started announcing they won. Well, guess what? So far, according to partial results right now, about 62% of the precincts have reported. They have not. It's been updated as of actually about three

minutes ago. Pete Buttigieg has 26 point. Now, this is weird. He's gotten 27,030 votes in the popular vote, yet he has a percentage of the delegates, 26.9%. Bernie Sanders got 28,220 votes, but 25.1% of the delegates. Elizabeth Warren, she's in second, third place, 22,254 votes, 18.3%. Joe Biden, 14,176 votes, 15.6%. Amy Klobuchar, 13,357 votes, 12.6%. Folks, this is all absolutely nonsensical. It is nuts. It makes no sense whatsoever. Let's go right to our panel. Malik Abdul, Republican strategist, also Kelly Bethea, communications strategist. Dr. Jason Nichols, Department of African American Studies, University of Maryland. Jason, I want to start with you.

I mean, this is just beyond stupid. First of all, okay, we don't have Jason. All right, fine. I'll start with Kelly. Kelly, this is just stupid because when you look at this whole deal here, first of all, it's not one person, one vote. And so what happens is turnout is abysmally low. About 16 percent of the folks voted in the Democratic caucus. You go there, you separate which side of the room for your candidate. There's a certain threshold in the first round your candidate must get. And then if your candidate doesn't get the threshold, then what happens is you then can go caucus with somebody else. And so you've got people who are lobbying, people who are standing up, talking about their candidate, why their candidate is the person who's the best choice.

In fact, there's this video going around of some white woman voting for Pete Buttigieg. Then she found out he was gay, and she wanted to pull her vote back. This is a stupid way to vote. This, to me, is the death nail, the drama issue, the death nail for the caucuses, not only in Iowa, but these other states as well. I mean, I have studied voting law and to this day, caucusing confuses me. Like even what you just said, I understand it from, you know, a verbatim perspective. I understand exactly what you said, but in practice, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

I would go so far as to say, based off of what you just said, I don't understand how caucusing in this manner isn't a way of voter suppression. Because like you said, only 16% come out. The process itself is confusing. And you can either take away your vote, give it to somebody else, what have you, what have you. And it just it does not make sense what happened to one vote, one person move along. What's happening in Iowa right now, like you said, it's it's absurd. It's absolutely ridiculous. And the fact that, you know, my understanding is that it's because of an app, like the technological difficulties of it. I don't understand how this was not already flushed out before it was even

put into practice for something this, for an event of this magnitude. We all know whether we like it or not, Iowa is the first to actually stick a claim in this election, given that being a fact, why wasn't this absolutely, without a doubt, pretty much foolproof? Like, people should have been trained on this thoroughly. The process should have been thorough. This is just a very huge ball that the Democrats just dropped. Okay, here's, okay, now Donald Trump, Malik is gloating. Talk about what happened there. But let's just be clear. Eight years ago, Republicans had their own mess in the Republican caucus. So it's not like all of a sudden this is something that is just about Democrats. Republicans have had drama in the Iowa caucus. And frankly, it's time to get rid of these caucuses.

I think it is idiotic for you to have to sit there when it's time to go vote. You've got to go to your particular precinct. You've got to wait. It may take hours for these things to happen. No, you should be able to go in and have privacy. Vote whoever you want to go to, and your neighbors don't need to know who you voted for, and you shouldn't have to be in a room explaining to people

why you support and who you support. So, Roland, this is nothing, as you said, Republicans had issues with this in the past. Iowa, nothing surprising about the Iowa caucus. People have been making these complaints about it for years now. So that they weren't able to get this together, it is a little problematic because apparently the Department of Homeland Security reached out to the officials there in Iowa and offered their help. And the officials in Iowa declined that. And then as I'm reading that apparently the DNC itself, and I guess maybe that's who was in charge of it, but apparently the officials in Iowa reached out to the DNC and

well, the party, as they said, and then the party didn't act on it. But as far as, you know, it's kind of funny to me that we have these conversations every four years about Iowa. The reality is, is that very few people who win the Iowa caucus end up becoming president of the United States. Barack Obama is the only... Barack Obama is... Actually, nine out of the last 11. Barack Obama is the last one that I actually can remember who actually won. Hillary Clinton won it last year, I believe.

Ted Cruz won it in... I think Ted Cruz won it in 2016. I think Rick Santorum won it another year. So I don't know what, you know, who the other ones were. Maybe back in, you know back prior to the 2000s or something like that. But as of late, very few people who win the Iowa caucus end up becoming

president of the United States. So if they decide to... No, no, no. Hold on. Let's go back. First of all, remember on Democratic side, nine out of the last 11 folks who won the Iowa caucus went on to win the nomination. So first and foremost, you've got to win the nomination before went on to win the nomination. So first and foremost, you got to win the nomination before you can even win the general election. So it does show that.

To me, the issue is irrelevant in terms of who wins the Iowa caucus and who goes on to become president. The problem that I have here is that, remember, in 2016, there was drama at the Nevada caucus where the Bernie Sanders people felt that they were being screwed over by Hillary Clinton supporters. I just believe fundamentally that caucuses are idiotic. If Malik wants to go vote, you should be able to go into a voting booth, cast your ballot, and go home. You should not have to go to a gymnasium and stay there for two or three hours and then stand up and go to your corner. And then Kelly goes to her corner. And then I go to my corner. And now we're waiting around there. You got children. And then what do you do with daycare? Elizabeth Warren was providing free daycare for people when it came to

caucuses. This is just dumb. You should have ballot boxes, go in, vote, go home. That's it. And it shouldn't be this whole deal if you don't reach a certain threshold, then you get to re-caucus. And so if you're Yang supporters, or if you're Cory Booker supporters or whoever was on the ballot and then you meet the threshold, then now all of a sudden you get to stand there and go, OK, who wants my vote? And so now Blue Judge people and Sanders people and Warren people and now they're jockeying for my vote. That's just dumb. I'm sorry. This is just dumb. And it's not just dumb, as you say, like I don't want to call it necessarily dumb. It's actually quite fascinating and complicated. But it's also, in my opinion, a way, a somehow legal way to suppress the vote.

Because, like you said, the whole point of voting in this country is that, one, it's straightforward, it's easy, and you do your duty and you leave to do other American duties such as what have you, like whatever you want your life to be. Being there for hours at a time. Hold on, Kelly, Kelly. Kelly, somebody on YouTube said caucusing must have come from Caucasians. No comment. No. No. You know, like, I don't have the history

of caucusing, so I'm not going to comment on that, but what I will say... I don't necessarily think it's... It's called levity, Malik. It's called levity. Yeah, but, I mean, you don't have to go through Caucasians created it. If somebody said that black people created it, it would have been... Malik, it's 91% white people.

Malik, it's 91% white people. Malik, it's 91% white people in Iowa. White people in Iowa can't count. And I actually think that black people are probably about 3% of Iowans. But this is the process that has been in place. But again, I think it's a ridiculous process. And again, this process needs to be over. Yeah, no, I agree with that.

I'm just pushing back on the nuns. The Democratic and the Republican Party. Malik, it's levity, dude. Move on. It's a joke. It's all it is. Okay, and I can criticize race jokes. I can criticize race jokes.

Okay, but whatever. We do that all the time, right? Bob Miles is here. Bob Miles is here. Here we are. Here we are. We're, you know, almost 24 hours after the Iowa caucus has started, and we still do not have all of the votes counted.

That, to me, is dumb. to me is ridiculous it's dumb and so and so guess what you know what kelly that's not no i'm gonna call it dumb okay and i think here's the part of the problem too often we say no we shouldn't call voters dumb we should this is saying that you shouldn't call the voter dumb we shouldn't call the voters but what i'm saying the process no you're right well we shouldn't call you shouldn't call the voter dumb. We shouldn't call voters dumb. But what I'm saying, the process, no, you're right, Roland. But there are dumb voters. Well, we shouldn't call people dumb. We just shouldn't.

Oh, I don't agree. We shouldn't call voters dumb. We shouldn't call voters dumb for making a decision, making a political decision that they want. We shouldn't call voters dumb. What I will say is that the process itself is dumb. Some people are dumb. I will say that the process itself is dumb. Some people are dumb. I will say that the process itself is dumb.

Whoever created said system, you know, intellectually challenged. Or you could find it ingenious in that they were able to suppress the vote for this long legally. You know, however you want to take it. Like you said. It is unfair. It is unfair. It is unfair if you are a parent and then you are dealing with this whole issue. You got to sit here and be there for hours.

I'm sorry. It makes no sense whatsoever. But I wasn't even thinking. I hope this is the end of it. Like what you were saying about parents. I wasn't even thinking about the parents. I was thinking about people. Like whenever I think about voter suppression and people who are most impacted by something like this, I think about the elderly.

I think about those who may be physically challenged. You know, maybe the venue itself is handicap accessible, but the fact that, you know, you have people there for hours for something that is supposed to be so simple. I can only imagine, like, if you are a severe diabetic, you need to go to dialysis, what have you. And again, these are extreme. It's nuts. You know, these are extreme examples, but these happen every day. So like for you to be there for hours, knowing you have other things to do, you know, that is very frustrating for some people.

And I can only imagine how Iowans feel about the caucus. Look, people, all this romanticism about, oh my God, it's a small state. They take it so seriously. It's so quaint. No. This is ridiculous. Small states can have simple processes just like the rest of the states. Well, guess what? And guess what? And the whole notion about small, if you

are a small state and you can't count the votes, I'm sorry, get rid of your process. And so hopefully, this is death knell to caucuses, and then we'll see what happens. But again, based upon the last reading here, let me go to it. Let me pull it up. Matter of fact, I'm going to go to the Des Moines Register website just to see.

So it looks like Boo Judge is the leader. But again, you've got candidates who are registering complaints. And I think, frankly, this Iowa now is irrelevant. And so really what this does right now is really put the focus now on going to New Hampshire. But again, according to Des Moines Register, what we're looking at is that Pete Buttigieg, 26.9.

Bernie Sanders, 25.1. Elizabeth Warren is at 18.3. Joe Biden is at 15.6. Amy Klobuchar is at 12.6. Andrew Yang got 14 at 1%. And so in terms of the delegates, Buttigieg will have 10. Bernie Sanders will have 10. Elizabeth Warren will have 4. Joe Biden will have 0.

And Klobuchar and Andrew Yang as well will have 0. Tom Steyer got 4. And see, again, even when you talk about, you know, like actual votes. I mean, you can't even, because they have a percentage of what they call total SDEs, which are state delegate. And it's just, again, it's just all over the place. I mean, can I just mention something? Hold on one second. No, no, no, no, no.

Hold on one second. Hold on one second. So here's what I'm now looking at. So, again, folks, just so you all understand, Iowa has this thing called first alignment and then final alignment. All right? And so it's totally confusing. And so in your particular precinct, you have to reach a certain threshold. I think it's 15% to go to the final round. So if you're a Joe Biden supporter and in your precinct, the people, your candidate did not get a certain threshold, then you get to re-caucus.

One of the precincts, they actually had a coin flip because there was a tie between, I think it was Warren and Buttigieg. So just, so perfect example here. So first alignment, Pete Buttigieg. So let me just, I'm going to read this here. In the first alignment, Bernie Sanders came in first with 27,088 votes. Buttigieg came in second with 23,666 votes. Joe Biden came in, sorry, Elizabeth Warren came in third with 20,848. Joe Biden was fourth with 16,179 votes. So now, after the first alignment, then they have, you can now reshuffle, and then you go to a final alignment.

So Pete Buttigieg was second in the first alignment and then went to 27,000 in the final alignment. So Pete Buttigieg was second in the first alignment and then went to 27,000 in the final alignment. Bernie Sanders, 28,220. But this is why this whole thing is so weird, y'all. So Buttigieg, this is the craziest thing. So in the final alignment, Bernie Sanders got 28,220 votes. Buttigieg got 27,030 votes. But Buttigieg gets more delegates and is declared the winner of the Iowa caucus. Okay? I'm just trying to understand, how do you get fewer votes, but you get more delegates, and you're the winner of the caucus? Yeah, so this is, we know that it's a ridiculous process,

but I just wanted to mention, from a purely political analyst, you know, an analyst point of view, over the years, this Iowa caucus, it really has been about momentum. So if you win the Iowa caucus, it's going to maybe push you into New Hampshire and then South Carolina. It's really about a momentum game. Of course, because you're first.

Yeah, but it's really... But you're first. Of course it's momentum. Yeah, but it's about a momentum game. But I think it actually, as bad and ridiculous as the process is, I do not believe that we would have had a president, Barack Obama, as bad and ridiculous as the process is, I do not believe that we would have had a president, Barack Obama, had it not been for the Iowa caucus. But no, but here's the deal, though.

I'm sorry. I'm not going to buy that, because here's the deal, okay? You could have gone to some other state with a bunch of white people. Obama won other states. For instance, in Nevada, Kelly, in Nevada, Obama came in second to Hillary Clinton, but he actually got one more delegate than she did in Nevada. But if you look at the problem I have is that, no, hold on, hold up. The problem I have here is this here. The problem I have is that I do not believe that one state should have the power to determine candidates who drop out or who stay in.

The problem with this process, Kelly, is that if you're not polling well in Iowa, then all of a sudden you're like, no, I guess I got to drop out. Historically, oh my goodness, I didn't do well in Iowa, and so therefore you begin to drop out. I believe that there should not be a single state to first to vote. I believe that what you should do is there should be at least three or four states voting on the same day. And then that way you have a better idea of the next round of states. It shouldn't be Iowa first, then New Hampshire, then Nevada, then South Carolina.

Put them all on one day. But see, the real deal, Kelly, this is about money. Iowa has it in their constitution that they will be first in the nation. This is about money. All those staffers, all the campaigns that spend millions on signs, on staff, on food, on AV equipment, on rental cars. And so this is really about big money for the state of Iowa. Kelly, go ahead. Then, Malik, final comment, then go to my next story. No, for sure. So with that being said, like, your proposal does happen. It just doesn't happen nearly as quickly or as often. We do have a Super Tuesday during this election cycle. It's just not nearly as many Super Tuesdays, so to speak, during the

election cycle. So I understand that frustration. I understand that discrepancy in the election process. But to Malik's point of Obama not, wouldn't have been president but for Iowa, I feel like there's a dichotomy in that statement versus what you said earlier that you, you know, not every candidate who wins Iowa becomes president. So, like, I understand both of your statements, but for it to basically be more along the same line of thought, I think that's a little contradictory. So either it helps or it hurts.

Yeah, well, just to be clear, I mentioned... No, no, I don't think... No, no, no, no, let me explain that. The reason I believe it's wrong is because the reality is, if you're first, you're going to get the momentum. No, I get that. So, frankly, if you flip the states, you're going to get the momentum. No, I get that.

So frankly, if you flip the states, you're going to get it. So it's because you're the first one. And the way the political process works, you win Iowa, all of the media attention is like, hey, you're the front runner. And then you get more attention, more money. And so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're first. So yeah, you're going to get more attention. Yeah so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're first.

So, yeah, you're going to get more attention. Yeah, well, I'm not sure I actually agree with that. But I do know that as far as just the polling is concerned, it wasn't until Barack Obama won Iowa that black people began supporting him. Because if you remember, before then, we were all supporting Hillary. Well, I wasn't supporting Hillary Clinton. I was supporting Barack Obama. But the actual polling started to shift. So I do agree with you that it may be.

I don't know. Why? Why? No, no, no. What I'm saying, but I don't know if the first primary, I don't know if the first voting was done in South Carolina or a state with a larger black population. I don't know if it would have been the same result.

It very well could have. No, but here's the deal. Obama got the benefit because he won the first state. It was like, oh, damn, he won. And not just won the first state. It was white people voting for him. It wasn't just winning a state. It was white people voting for him.

But here's the deal, though. We don't know that because you don't have any other thing that's voting. So, frankly, guess what? That could have been it. It could not have been it. At the end of the day, this is what happens here. All right, y'all, I got to go to a break. When we come back, we're going to talk about TSU,

the drama in Houston with the president. That's next on Roland Martin Unfiltered. You want to check out Roland Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. It's Roller Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there?

Roller Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, and 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. You want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered? Be sure to join our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar that you give to us supports our daily digital show. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real. As Roland Martin Unfiltered support the Roland Martin Unfiltered daily digital show by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Our goal is to get 20,000 of our fans

contributing 50 bucks each for the whole year. You can make this possible. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Yeah! Peace. It's wonderful. Aren't you glad? Religious leader, Father Divine. All right, folks, join Dr. Jackie Hood-Martin as she engages others to think like a leader.

Are you looking to enhance your leadership or that of your team in 2020? Well, join 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 on February 28th. Register or start the online course today by going to www.live2.com. That's www.live Lee.com forward slash Leesburg. That's www.live, L-I-V-E, the number two, L-E-A-D.com forward slash L-E-E-S-B-U-R-G.

All right, folks, in the latest impeachment news, the impeachment managers as well as Trump's attorneys delivered their closing arguments on Monday with little hope of changing anyone's mind. Here are some of today's arguments. Both articles 1 and 2 must fail. This entire campaign of impeachment that started from the very first day that the president was inaugurated was a partisan one and it should never happen again. The president did not condition security assistance or a meeting on anything during the July 25 call.

As I stand here today delivering the House's closing argument, President Trump's constitutional crimes, his crimes against the American people and the nation remain in progress. Have the facts as presented to you as a court, as the high court of impeachment, proven trustworthy? Has there been full and fair disclosure in the course of these proceedings? Absent conviction and removal, how can we be assured that this president will not do it again? If we are to rely on the next election to judge the president's efforts to cheat in that election,

how can we know that the election will be free and fair? How can we know that every vote will be free from foreign interference solicited by the president himself? We've never been in a situation like this in our history. We have an impeachment that is purely partisan and political. It's opposed by bipartisan members of the House. It does not even allege a violation of law. It is passed in an election year, and we're sitting here on the day that election season begins in Iowa.

It is wrong. There is only one answer to that, and the answer is to reject those articles of impeachment. As the trial comes to a close, the final vote is still to come. It will take place on Wednesday. What was interesting, Malik, now some people are saying let's censure. Like that somehow is going to impact Donald Trump. He doesn't give a damn. This is not going to change anything. Now you've got Senator Susan Collins saying, yeah, I'm going to vote not to convict him because I really think that he's learned his lesson.

Really? Well, hey, I've been on your show. I've been around media saying that that's something that the censoring is something that the House actually should have done. I think that Congress actually should have gone that route because you would have gotten more support from Republicans on that. When you say that I want to impeach you and remove you from office, which is essentially what the impeachment is all about, I do believe that that's a little harder for people to swallow. If they had gone the censure route. Now, Donald Trump would much prefer a censure, but he would not like a censure either. Now, I know you said that he doesn't care.

He actually does care, probably because of just how it looks in the sense of how any president would care about whether or not they've been censured or impeached, because that is something that will forever be on their record. But I think if Democrats had chosen the censure route as opposed to the impeachment route, we would have actually been at a different place now and you would have had more bipartisan support. Right now, it's just the partisans on each. Kelly. Right now, it's just the people on which. Kelly, I don't think.

If you're a Democrat, this is what you're going to believe. If you're a Republican, this is what you're going to believe. And there's very little middle ground in that, as it would have been had you actually gone the censure route. Kelly, these Republicans wouldn't give a damn about censure. Bottom line is they are going to protect Donald Trump at all costs. I mean, I see both sides here, both your point of view and Malik's. I don't think that, how do I say this? Even if the Democrats- I don't know, say it. Just say it. Yeah, no, I was trying to formulate a thought. Even if the Democrats did go the censure route, I think we still would have come up with the same result of the Republicans just not caring and not

agreeing with the Democrats because the parties are so polarized and the Republicans just not caring and not agreeing with the Democrats because the parties are so polarized and the Republicans want somebody in their party as the president so badly that it kind of doesn't matter what Donald Trump does or what repercussions would happen therein. They will support that president because they don't want a Democrat in office, in the highest office in the land. So I feel like the Democrats made the right move here in going the impeachment route, not only because what he did rose to the level of impeachment, but they also have to have a strong front as well, saying like, we will not tolerate such behavior from the highest office in

the land. And a censor doesn't necessarily send that message but impeachment does so they did do the right thing and going this route if you did go the censure route I do see Malik's point in in a perfect world where Republicans would be like yeah I didn't that wasn't cool we should say something about it but I don't think that would have happened I know the perfect world that's what I'm saying. We're not in a perfect world. And the world that we're in is one where Donald Trump owns, owns this entire party. But that's my point.

But what president doesn't own their own party? They were never. No, no, no, no, no. What president doesn't? No, no, no, no. Hold on a minute. This is totally different. This is totally different.

What you have here is you have Republicans consistently making numerous excuses for anything this man does. They will not hold him accountable for anything. Well, that's just not true, Roland. I have absolutely. Nope. That's just not true. Where's the evidence? Well, Roland, there have been a number of times, many times, whether it was Lindsey Graham,

whether it was Chuck Grassley, whether it was even Marco Rubio, who interestingly made a different statement now, but there have been many Republicans who have publicly criticized Donald Trump for some of the things that he's actually... There have been many Republicans who have criticized Donald Trump.

There's a difference between an individual congressman criticizing the president and the Republican Party within Congress as a united front not only criticizing him but actually doing something about it. But so, and this is, I've actually made this point many times before when people say, well, why is it that, why is it that... No, no, no, I'm going to finish my point. No, no, I'm going to finish my point.

I'm going to finish my point. This is what I said. I said hold him accountable. 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, on Fox News and holding him accountable. Two different things. So let me be clear. I did not say the Republicans have not given speeches saying, oh, Trump shouldn't have done that or shouldn't have said that or that was inartful how he worded. I said they have refused at every turn to hold Donald Trump accountable.

Yeah, and so I knew what you were saying there because you've mentioned it many times before, but outside of voting to remove the president of the United States from office, what, what is, what does holding Trump accountable look like? So if criticizing Trump, no, you asked the Okay. I'll tell you what it looks like. What it looks like is when Donald Trump gives cover to Saudi Arabia. When it comes to the killing of a journalist working for the Washington Post, and then Donald Trump's like, hey, they're spending money with us buying arms. What did the members of Congress do?

How do they hold him accountable? Have they stopped what he's done? Have they stopped any action that he's done? No. What they've done is they've said, oh, okay, all right, all right, well, you know what? Okay, you're done. You should have done that, but okay, go right ahead.

No, they have not rebuked him at any turn. Show me the evidence. Well, Roland, I just told you the many instances where Republicans have actually criticized him. The notion that somehow members of the party, the notion that somehow members of any party, be it Democrat or Republican, are going to publicly rebuke their president of the United States, it's just a pipe dream. It's not something that's really going to publicly rebuke their president of the United States, it's just a pipe dream.

It's not something that's really going to happen. That's not necessarily true, though. There have been many instances... That's not true. That's not necessarily true. Kelly, go ahead. That's not true. As an example, what?

But what I'm... Okay, what I'm saying... Kelly, go ahead. First of all, we've never had a president do, like, a litany of super egregious things to the extent of Donald Trump such that we needed an entire party to hold that president accountable. So that's number one. But when you say there have been several Republicans who have criticized him, you're

absolutely right. There have been. But there's a difference between these people criticizing him and actually bringing forth legislation. Such as what, though? What does hold him accountable mean? I mean, frankly, Malik, they could have brought the censure. They could have said— They don't have the House. How could Republicans— They had the House for the first year and a half of his presidency. So what are they censuring him about prior to this? What is it that you want to send him about? I mean, a censure, like how you said that this didn't rise to high crimes and misdemeanors

and the Congress has the ability to determine what a high crime and misdemeanor is, Congress can also determine what rises to the level of censure. Some of the things that Donald Trump has done, either by way of his tweets or his policies, I mean, they could have censured him for the seven-country ban within his first 12 months. But that's something that went through courts, though. But what I'm saying— So you're going to censure him for something that the courts eventually ruled in his favor? What I'm saying is Congress had the ability at that time to do it because it doesn't matter what that branch of government does.

It matters what the legislative branch of government does when it comes to censure. So when Donald Trump did that, when he did that, Congress could have been like, hey, that's messed up. You need a censure, regardless of what the judicial branch did. That's just not how censures work. It is how censures work. No, you don't need the judicial branch to bring forth a censure. No, I'm not. It's just not how censures work. No, you don't need the judicial branch to bring forth a censure. That's my point. But judicial branches don't bring forth censures. I don't understand what you're... I said Congress

can bring a censure. And you're talking about judicial branch. Those are two separate branches. So we're not talking about that. I'm very clear here. Folks, folks, it's very clear. Republican Party is not going to hold Donald Trump accountable. They're not going to rebuke him. It's about power. It's as simple as that, and that's what they're going to do. Let's talk about the House of Representatives, folks, passing the Comprehensive Credit Act

of 2020, which, among other things, will make it easier to fix mistakes in credit reports, improve free annual credit reports, restrict the use of credit report for employment purposes, and limit the reporting of medical debt. It will also give struggling private student loan borrowers a chance to rehabilitate their credit. The bill was introduced by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressler of Massachusetts and here's her talking about it. In this country, our credit reports are our reputations, determining where you can live, where you can work, and how much it will cost you to finance everything from a car to a college degree. But our credit reporting system is fundamentally flawed, rife with inequities and disparities

that stifle the upward mobility of millions of hardworking Americans. I am proud to rise in support of my Comprehensive Credit Reporting Enhancement, Disclosure, Innovation, and Transparency, or the Comprehensive Credit Act, a critical package of reforms that will improve our fundamentally flawed credit reporting system. How and what information is shared with credit reporting agencies is especially important as Americans take on ever-increasing debts simply for trying to afford basic needs, housing, health care, and higher education. Trailing only mortgages, student loan debt is now the second highest form of consumer debt, impacting nearly one-fifth of U.S. households and totaling over $1.6 trillion.

That's trillion with a T. In my home state of Massachusetts alone, over 855,000 borrowers owe a total of 33.3 billion dollars in student loan debt. That's why I'm especially proud the Comprehensive Credit Act includes reforms originally introduced in my Student Borrower Credit Improvement Act. Reforms that would establish a credit rehabilitation process for private student loan borrowers facing hardship, making students eligible to have all associated derogatory remarks removed from their credit reports, which can otherwise stay on for seven years.

Even if we wipe out all student debt tomorrow, the devastating impact on consumers' credit would remain for years to come. For that very reason, we must give folks a real chance at recovery and repair. It is estimated that one in five Americans has a potential error on their credit report. But for too long, credit reporting agencies have kept consumers in the dark and made it difficult to correct errors that do come to light. The Comprehensive Credit Act will ensure that consumers can quickly and easily rectify those errors.

At a time when wages are stagnant but the costs of housing, childcare, and education continue to rise, we should be working to provide our constituents pathways to financial stability and to success. It is why this bill would restrict the use of credit scores for most hiring decisions, limit the amount of time that adverse information can remain on a person's credit profile, and ban the reporting of any debt as a result of medically necessary procedures. I urge my colleagues to support the Comprehensive Credit Act and to ensure a more equitable and transparent credit reporting system for all.

Mel, like I have no, this now goes to the U.S. Senate. I have no confidence that Mitch McConnell is going to pick this up. Republicans were extremely anti the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And so I doubt very seriously we'll see them do anything when it comes to this bill. I don't know that. We don't know that. There are things about it that I definitely like. I don't think that it's a bad. Well, they got a history on this one. Okay. Well, it hasn't gone to the Senate yet. This is the same Senate that passed criminal justice reform that people probably wouldn't have thought that they passed. No, this is the same Senate. This is the same Senate where Democrats have passed about 400 bills

that have not been taken up at all by Mitch McConnell. Well, because you're smart, although your audience may not be, you're smart enough to know how this works, Roland. Let me finish. Roland, let's not be politically disingenuous here. No, no, no. Actually, I'm including bills that was passed to put money to protect the integrity of the elections in November. That bill has gone nowhere.

Let's not be disingenuous here. You, as well as me, and probably. No, I'm not being disingenuous. I'm stating things that actually should be bipartisan, but Mitch McConnell will not bring it up. Absolutely. Well, let me explain to you how this normally works, since you seem as if you don't know now. I don't need you to explain the damn thing. The House can pass 1,000 bills, and they can say that they passed 1,000 bills,

and we know that there's another process there, which is the Senate. So the notion that they pass bills that they know that the Senate may not take up at all is, yeah, it actually helps them with their numbers and saying we pass X number of bills. And that would be the case. And that would be the case, Roland, whether or not there was a House controlled

by Democrats or Republicans. That's how the process works, Roland. And you know that. You know that you to explain to me how that works. That's how the process works, woman. Here's what I know. And you know that. Here's what I know, Kelly. You know how it works. The Republican Party was absolutely against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What I know as a fact, Kelly, that Mick Mulvaney, when Donald Trump put him over that, gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which actually, under President Obama,

saved taxpayers about $12 billion. We know as a fact, Kelly, that Mick Mulvaney and the Trump administration allowed predatory lenders to do whatever they want, allowed payday lenders, stripped all of those different provisions. And so, yes, Kelly, I have absolutely no confidence that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party and the Senate would do anything when it comes to this credit protection bill that was passed and laid by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley and passed in the House.

Kelly, go ahead. Kelly, go ahead. Actually, that's not true. You've already said on your show that there is nothing that this administration or Republicans have done. This is what you said on your show. Kelly, Kelly, Kelly is going to respond. Kelly, go ahead. on that, but this is what you said. Kelly, go ahead. Malik, Kelly's not going to respond. Kelly, go ahead. So I understand your vote of no confidence. I can't, you know, say that I disagree with you, just given their track record.

Yeah, like I applaud Congressman Presley, given everything that she's going through to to honestly just do her job of this as if nothing's happening. You know, like what she's going through right now is very personal and it is definitely in the spotlight over her job. So I feel like just pushing through doing her job and actually introducing said legislation to the floor. That's highly commendable. And I just feel like we should applaud that, knowing what, you know, just based off of patterned behavior, I'm not going to say that I know exactly what's going to happen, but just based off of patterned behavior, it does not look like the Senate is going to do anything with this bill. Especially when, like you said, what the Trump administration has done to basically dismantle and gut anything regarding consumer protection. So while, you know, I don't necessarily think it's every single Republican, but like we have

established earlier in this show, the Republicans are kind of a united front, whether or not individual Republicans agree, they just need to act like they're a united front. So with this bill, I think as a united front, especially on the Senate side, nothing's necessarily going to be done with this bill. And it's unfortunate because it not only helps, you know, people who support Ayanna Pressley, it helps people who support the Republican Party as well.

And if they would just, you know, stop, you know, operating on party lines as if one's evil and one's good, you know, we would actually have... That's what we do all the time on this show. One's evil, one's good. Republicans are evil and Democrats are good. This happens all the time on this show. See, this is where you're a liar, Malik. This is where you're a liar.

Well, the fact that you would even call anybody a liar, if many lies, if you told them your own show, and your people in your comment section, your followers are going to believe it if you stood on K Street and shot someone. So let me state this right here. Your people would believe you. So if you're going to call somebody a liar, I have many instances, Roland, where you have lied to your audience. Malik, I'm talking.

You have lied. I'm talking right now. Let me state this for all of you. Malik, you're going to call me a liar, and you're going to vote for a liar in Donald Trump. I'm going to acknowledge the fact that you lied. L-I-P-D. Let me state this for all of you. Malik, Malik, you're going to call me a liar and you're going to vote for a liar in Donald Trump. You're a liar. Let me state this here, folks. Let me state this very clearly. Let me state this very clearly, folks.

Here are some bipartisan bills. Here are some bipartisan bills. Malik, I'm talking now. Here are some bipartisan bills. Here are some bipartisan bills that have passed in the House. OK, first, net neutrality, bipartisan bill passed in the House. Equal Pay Act, bipartisan bill passed in the House. OK, a simple authorization of the Violence Against Women's Act.

Real simple, bipartisan. Itisan. Those bills have gone nowhere in the Senate. To all the folks who are watching, as I said, it's a graveyard over in the Senate. All Mitch McConnell cares about are federal judicial appointments and they're bipartisan bills he won't even touch. So I have no

hope that Republicans in the Senate are going to take up this credit bill by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. All right, folks, the NAACP has been a lawsuit that's been filed against them by Jasmine Childs, who repeatedly told the National NAACP that her supervisor in North Carolina had sexually harassed her. She's now co-resuming the group and her former boss. And the lawsuit filed in Durham County Court, attorneys for Childs say she was sexually harassed by the Reverend Curtis Gatewood when she was youth and college field secretary for the state conference in 2017.

Here's her announcing it at a news conference in September. Shortly after I begun my dream work, a long nightmare began. On February 8th, 2017, I was out of work with the flu on my couch covered with a blanket when my cell phone rang. My coworker, Tyler Swanson, said that a supervisor had asked him for my cell phone number. Tyler refused to give it to him. Tyler said he watched him open a file cabinet, pulling out a folder with my name and looking at my resume. About 30 minutes later, my phone rang with a number I didn't recognize. I thought it may have been someone from a branch or a college, so I answered the call. I heard the voice of the supervisor. I was very confused. I thought I had done something wrong,

but in a seductive, low voice, he said he was calling to check on me and to let him know if I needed anything, anything at all. He would be there for me. I tried to end the call politely because at the time I was a temporary employee and I wanted a contract position. I felt violated and scared. In fact, Tyler and another coworker had warned me in my first week at the NAACP never to be alone with this man because he had sexually harassed interns and other young women. After I hung up the phone,

I understood what they meant. Then on May 2nd 2017 the staff Take your time. The staff. The staff were in the office setting up for my co-worker, Laura Ashton's surprise going away party. We left the lights off in the room, hoping she would not see what we were doing as I was unpacking food and setting it up on the table. I felt someone's breath on my neck, and then I felt Empress's penis against my buttocks. I turned around quickly and saw the same supervisor. I yelled loudly, why are you hovering over me? That's gross move. He claimed he was looking for receipt and then he stormed out. I stood there feeling violated, ashamed and scared he would get more aggressive.

I reported the incidents and filed a sexual harassment complaint. Jasmine says she suffers from depression, anxiety, nervousness, and insomnia. As a result, the lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in compensatory damages and more than $25,000 in punitive damages on each of three claims, battery assault, and intentional affliction, emotional distress. We reached out to the NAACP for comment, but have not received a response just yet.

Also folks, let's talk about Texas Southern University's Board of Regents. They scheduled a special meeting today for to discuss the termination, the possible termination of school president Austin Lane. The board gave no explanation for its actions in term in placing on administrative leave. Lane's assistant, Wenda Williams, was fired 30 minutes after the announcement was made a few weeks ago. A week later, the board released a statement

noting that Lane was put on leave amid an investigation into alleged improprieties in TSU's admissions process. The statement did not directly link Lane to the investigation, but noted Lane had twice been interviewed about it. Also, I've talked to various folks in Houston, and the board claimed that they've reached out to law enforcement authorities, yet the district attorney's office and Houston Police Department say there are no active investigations involving TSU. And so they got some explaining to do on that board. We have reached out to all of the board members on repeatedly via email,

and none of them, actually a couple have responded, but the board chair and the others who voted to put Lane on administrative leave have refused to make any comment to us whatsoever. All right, folks, in Ohio, a former Northmont High School student, Jordan Evans, said he was wrongly accused of smelling like marijuana in his first period class last week. The suspension notice mentioned several members of the staff smelling him.

Hmm. He said he was searched. His mother, Katina Cottrell, who's a registered nurse, was called to the school where she tried to prove her son's innocence. She took a drug test to the school and tested him in front of the principal. The results came back negative. She then took her son to urgent care to have another test done the same day with the same negative result. Cottrell says she's worried her son is being racially discriminated against. Her concern comes that the district has taken a closer look at relationships between white teachers and black students. Kelly, this is one of those things that to me is a joke.

So to say, oh, I smell marijuana on you, but he takes a drug test and it's negative, I'm sorry. This is not how you're supposed to be leading when it comes to students in schools. Not at all. And I understand, especially in primary schooling, you know, K through 12 schools, that there may be a zero tolerance policy for such substances on minors. However, if you tested negative,

it doesn't matter what you smell. You obviously don't have any on you and you don't have it on your person and you weren't using. So, you know, the school, you know, in good faith should have just apologized to the student and the parents and the student should have just been able to go to class immediately. This is one of those cases where the school just felt like it had to say face and stand strong in their conviction that this child was wrong when in fact the child was right and i feel like it was more of an inflated ego and just bad practice all around to feel like a child couldn't be right in this situation um yeah the school definitely needs to rectify it immediately, have it off his record so that nothing like this will show up in future documents for him. Like, I don't know if this child was in high school or not. I didn't

catch that part of the story. But regardless, there should be nothing regarding this child that would hinder him from, you know, pursuing his education even further when it really was the school's fault that any of this happened in the first place. I just don't understand how somebody can smell like marijuana, but take a drug test and is negative, but still get suspended. Hey, I'll just say this. It is very possible to be around people who smoke marijuana, walk away smelling like marijuana,

and haven't smoked marijuana yourself. It's kind of like cigarettes in that case. I mean, you can be around someone who hasn't smoked, who you don't smoke cigarettes yourself, but you're around people who smoke, and so you end up smelling like smoke. This is a little ridiculous. I do know that the school's policy is that you can't have marijuana on your breath or person. So that's very possible that he smelled like marijuana because he could have been around people who smoke. But I think when you get to a point where you're actually having not just one drug test,

the notion that his mother even had to come and give him one is already crazy. But then you go a little further and you do a second drug test. I think under those circumstances, the school clearly overreached at this point because you can smell marijuana on him. But if you have proof, because at this point, that's the proof. The proof is the drug test. And so if you have that information, if you have that proof, to then go ahead and continue with the suspension is very heavy-handed,

and I think that that's something that the district itself should reconsider. Look, the reason why I find this to be BS, when I was in middle school, William S. Holland Middle School in Houston, it was a security guard. We were in the library, and he pulled me and another student into the office. One was a Latino young man, and both of us had similar afros, curly hair, and so clearly the teacher, her name was Ms. Hart, and she, I think this was eighth grade,

it was a reading teacher. What she did was she asked the security guard to check us. And because I had bloodshot eyes. My eyes have always been red. People hit me on Instagram like, oh, my God, you're sick. Your eyes are red. I'm like, y'all, my eyes have been red since I was a kid.

That's what happens when you grow up next to the Houston Ship Channel and all the chemical plants. It was interesting. So we go into the office, and so the security guard asked us to empty our pockets. And I'm going like, why are we emptying our pockets? And so we empty our pockets. And so there was this, I had a couple of little small sheets of paper. And I said, dude, don't even try it. Like, don't even think for a second that that's some marijuana slips in my pocket.

And so I got home, I got home. And what happened was I told my dad what happened. My dad said, get the white pages. Now for all y'all kids out there who don't know, who were not around when they had white pages, that's actually, they had two phone books, they had the white pages and they had the yellow pages. White pages were for businesses,

yellow pages of course were for businesses. So pages, of course, were for businesses. So I got the white pages. And my dad, he called the middle school. Mr. Broussard was the principal, and he asked for him. And he said, Mr. Broussard, my son just came home and told me what happened. He said, let me be real clear. None of my kids drink. None of my kids use drugs.

He said, I fully expect when my son comes to school tomorrow that his teacher, he said, what's her name, son? I said, Ms. Hart. He said that she's going to apologize to my son for what she did. And he said, if my son gets home tomorrow and tells me that she has not apologized, I will be in your office 15 minutes after he arrives at home. He said, do you understand what I am saying? And Mr. Broussard said, Mr. Martin, I certainly understand. He said, so I fully expect that apology or you will be seeing me tomorrow. And he hung the phone up. Next day, I went to that class. Ms. Hart, who was a white teacher, yes, she apologized to me personally for having me search for marijuana. So there was no suspension. But when you look at this

particular story here, it is shameful that this young man was suspended. And this is the kind of crap that black kids have to deal with in schools all the time. We covered here the story out of Galveston or near Galveston. The exact same thing happened. And so unfortunately it happens far too often to our children. And so we stand with his mother. And I say give that school as much hell as you possibly can.

All right, folks, let's talk about in a speech at the British Academy's Film Awards a few nights ago. After winning the leading actor award for his role in the movie Joker, Joaquin Phoenix used his acceptance speech to draw attention to the lack of diversity and inclusion in the film industry. I feel very honored and privileged to be here tonight. BAFTAs have always been very supportive of my career and I'm deeply appreciative. But I have to say that I also feel conflicted because so many of my fellow actors that are deserving don't have that same privilege. I think that we send a very clear message to people of color that you're not

welcome here. I think that's the message that we're sending to people that have contributed so much to our medium and our industry and in ways that we benefit from. I don't think anybody wants a handout or preferential treatment, although that's what we give ourselves every year. I think that people just want to be acknowledged and appreciated and respected for their work. This is not a self-righteous condemnation because I'm ashamed to say that I'm part of the problem. I have not done everything in my power to ensure that the sets I work on are inclusive, but I think that it's more really do the hard work to truly understand systemic racism.

I think that it is the obligation of the people that have created and perpetuate and benefit from a system of oppression to be the ones that dismantle it so that's on us Boy that's a true tale innocent white folks Kelly you know, I There's nothing that he said that was wrong or I disagree with I feel like you know, he said this at the BAFTA award so that's in England. So I would have had a little bit more of a moved moment so to speak had he said this at the Golden Globes or elsewhere. I don't know what his.

The Oscars. The Oscars. We. So if he wins, he might say it there. Listen, we might see it. I'm not going to... Wait, wait. He's already... Hold up. He won the Golden Globe for Joker and he won the Baptist, so he might win the Academy Awards. Oh, for sure.

For sure. You know, I'm not... Again, I'm not discrediting what he said. I just am of the mindset that what he's saying should be more normalized and not necessarily praised. I applaud him for his awareness, but I need more than a speech out of Joaquin Phoenix, because as he said in that speech, he has not done enough. Hopefully this speech is a first start and that there's already something on the books that will back up said speech. So for example, Michael B. Jordan has introduced through his production company a writer clause

such that people of diversity and color are almost obligated to have first dibs on contracts such as a Joker role or somebody on crew or somebody in production or directing so that you have accountability in that. I would, I much rather, well, not much rather, I applaud a clause like that coming out of Michael B. Jordan and what was the studio, Universal or Warner, I forgot which one, but the main studio that is adopting that through all of its production projects i applaud something like that a lot more than a speech in a country that frankly are the originators of this of this problem

well that's and that's where again i think mellick at the end of the day it's it's it proves in the pudding in terms of what you do your comment please before we go yeah absolutely i actually i will co-sign um kelly i'll, you know, Phoenix a slow clap here. But I wish you had actually said that at the Golden Globes. Because to me, it's kind of like a white person coming before black people to talk about racism, but they never go before white people to actually talk about racism. Well, there weren't that many black people in that room that night. No, I'm saying, but my point, I'm just kind of making that as a comparison there. You know, I just, I wish that he and other people who like to have these moments do it kind of when it matters a little more.

Maybe he'll do it at the Oscars. I don't know. But I will say this very quickly. Right, but. Yeah, I just will say this very quickly. I'm one of those who actually believes that instead of Joaquin Phoenix, the guy who played Corey in Central Park Five, when they see us, I actually think he's the one who actually should have won. But that's why I'm here. That could not, but actually that could not have applied.

Oh wait, no, because that's an Emmy because it was a series. It wasn't a whole movie. Okay, darn. Right, right. But Golden Globes, he was snubbed. And that wasn't a motion picture. And And also, that wasn't a motion picture. Right. That was because it was on, it wasn't. Oh, okay.

Yeah, that's more Golden Globes. That wasn't actually on, that wasn't on the big screen. So Netflix has movies on the big screen that they also stream. Got it. That was solely on Netflix. Got it. So that's why that wasn't the case there. All right, folks, I gotta go, because I gotta go speak right now here at Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Indianapolis.

Folks, if you're in Indianapolis, come on by. I'm talking about how blacks have been forgotten out of the Bible, but we're going to expand that thing a little bit more to talk about the issue of white supremacy. And I think we have it set up where my folks are going to be streaming it as well. So I got to go. If y'all want to support Roller Barton Unfiltered, please do so. Actually, I'm going to do this here real quick. We're going to end the show this way before I go. First of all, support RollerMartinUnfiltered.com.

The last couple of days, we were actually streaming the Congressional Black Caucus, their National Leadership Summit. I was emcee last night. We also streamed today. You can go watch both of those on our YouTube channel. So we're going to close the show out with Reverend Barber, who spoke today with his comments today from the CBC Summit. And so we're going to play for that. And then, of course, we're going to transition right into my speech here in Indianapolis. So you have a great day. I'll see you back in the studio in D.C. tomorrow.

Holler! I'm sorry. Thank you. this is an iHeart podcast