#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 9.24 #RMU: Trump impeachment probe; Nat'l Voter Registration Day; MS election suit; MI voter fraud

Episode Date: September 27, 2019

9.24.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump impeachment inquiry looms; National Voter Registration Day; Lawsuit over a Mississippi election law, if successful, will change the way that state elects its governor.; Michigan city clerk charged with election fraud; Gemmel Moore's mother is angry about the way she was treated in the Ed Buck investigation; Black cop who arrested 2 - 6 year black girls has been fired. - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: Life Luxe Jazz Life Luxe Jazz is the experience of a lifetime, delivering top-notch music in an upscale destination. The weekend-long event is held at the Omnia Dayclub Los Cabos, which is nestled on the Sea of Cortez in the celebrity playground of Los Cabos, Mexico. For more information visit the website at lifeluxejazz.com. - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Hey folks, Roland Martin here, broadcasting live from Houston, Texas, site of the National Black McDonald Operators Association, where I gave the keynote speech earlier today. Coming up today on Roland Martin, unfiltered, the House is moving to impeach Donald Trump. Congressman John Lewis comes out in strong support of an impeachment inquiry. We'll give you all the latest details. Also, day two of the Botham Jean trial, four hours away in Dallas.

Defense attorneys there are trying to make the claim that Amber Geiger shot Botham Jean in self-defense, but it was in his apartment. Again, we'll have the latest details for you in that particular story. Also, on today's show, a lawsuit over Mississippi election law is successful, could change the way the state elects its governor, and a Michigan city clerk is charged with voter fraud. We're also talking to Jamel Moore's mother, angry about the way she was treated in the Ed Buck investigation. She's here to talk about it. Also on today's show, the black cop who arrested two six-year-old girls in Florida, fired out of his job.

We'll tell you more about that. Plus, iconic activist Tommy Smith as well as John Carlos are joining the Olympic Hall of Fame. Folks, it's time to bring the funk and roll the button on the filter. 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 belief he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks, he's rolling.

It's on for a roll, y'all. Yeah, yeah. It's rolling, Martin, yeah It's Uncle Roro, y'all Yeah, yeah, yeah It's Rollin' Marten Yeah, yeah, yeah Rollin' with Rollin' now Yeah, yeah, yeah He's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best You know he's Rollin' Marten

Now Big news out of Capitol Hills. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling for an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. This follows the big story of a whistleblower coming forward to question some comments he'd made on a phone call to the Ukraine president. But it also follows the Washington Post story that details Donald Trump asking for military aid to Ukraine be held up a few days before calling that president. An increasing number of Democrats have been calling for an impeachment inquiry. Nancy Pelosi has been resisting it for quite some time. But the latest developments, the last 48 hours, has changed all of that. Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights icon from Georgia, who long has been quiet on impeachment, today took to the floor

and stepped up and said, it is time. Today, I come with a heavy heart, deeply concerned about the future of our democracy. And I'm not alone. People approach me everywhere I go, whether I'm traveling back and forth to Atlanta or around our country. They believe, they truly believe that our nation is descending into darkness. They never dreamed that the United States, once seen as a beacon of hope and as an inspiration to people's striving for equality and justice will be failing into such degrees. I share that concern for the

future of our country. It keeps me up at night. We took an oath to protect this nation against all domestic intimates and foreign intimates. Sometime I'm afraid to go to sleep for fear that I will wake up and our democracy will be gone and never return. Every term this administration demonstrate complete disdain and disregard for ethics, for the law, and for the Constitution. They have lied on an oath. They refuse to account for their action and appear

before legislative body who have the constitutional right to inquire about their activities. Their people have a right to inquire. They have a right to know. The people have a right to know whether they can put their faith and trust in the outcome of our election. They have a right to know whether the thunderstorm of our democracy was undermined by people sitting in the White House today. They have a right to know whether a foreign power will ask to intervene in the 2020 election. They have a right to know whether the president is

using his office to line his pockets. Mr. Speaker, the people of this nation realize that if they had committed even half of the possible violation, the federal government would be swift to seek justice. We cannot delay. We must not wait. Now is the time to act. I have been patient when we tried every other path and used every other tool. We will never find the truth unless we use the power

given to the House of Representatives and the House alone to begin an official investigation as dictated by the Constitution. The future of our democracy is at stake. There come a time when you have to be moved by the spirit of history to take action to protect and preserve the integrity of our nation.

I believe, I truly believe the time to begin impeachment proceedings against this president has come. To delay or to do otherwise would betray the foundation of our democracy.

Folks, this has been a day Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn't been trying to avoid, but again the news in the last 48 hours simply had gotten too much. Two-thirds of our Democratic caucus is now supportive of impeachment efforts. Here's what she had to say. I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our six committees

to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law. The issue here, of course, deals with that phone call to Ukrainian officials, the president there, the Department of Justice. They have been fighting, releasing the inspector general's report and as well as that whistleblower complaint to Congress. Congress says we have oversight of the executive branch. They have resisted. Now, of course, as a result of this decision to withhold $400 million in military aid to Ukraine,

it was eventually given to them. That is what has caused Democrats to say enough is enough. Let's go to our panel. Joining me right now in Washington, D.C., is Dr. Jason Nichols, Department of African American Studies, University of Maryland, Kelly Bethea, Communications Strategist, Malik Abdul, Republican Strategist. Jason, I will start with you. What Democrats, frankly, have now come around to is to realize that Donald Trump was going to continue to do whatever he wanted to do. Early in his presidency, he said, they told me I can do whatever I want.

I have immunity. He believes that he can make money. He can sit here and do whatever he wants. Ordered Coral Lewandowski to go fire Jeff Sessions to try to fire James Comey. I mean, one after another. And so here's a person who had obstruction of justice when it came to the Mueller report. Now we have this issue when it comes to the crane. The only way Democrats can address this issue is they have to move forward with the Petrie inquiry. Otherwise, he will continue to do wrong. No, I agree. I think one of the

things that, you know, Nancy Pelosi has tried to do up until this point is be very calculating with these kinds of things. Think about the political costs. But that's not the job of the House. The House's job is oversight. And as a matter of fact, you know, I think, you know, many of us have been asking what has taken so long? We see what was in the Mueller report. And now, as a matter of fact, the president feels emboldened by the Mueller report. He's basically said, OK, I see what's here. And it clearly lays out 11 different cases of obstruction of justice. But you can't do anything to me. As a matter of fact, I may even be able to pardon myself. So, you know, I'm going to do what I want.

I'm going to, you know, break the law in plain view. That's the other thing is they're not even trying to hide it. It's in plain view, and I think it's about time to do this now. We also have to remember historically there have been two presidents who have been impeached, and impeachment does not mean removal. We've never had a president who's been removed by impeachment. So I think that Democrats also have to temper their expectations of what's going to come out of this inquiry. Well, let's deal with this reality.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept saying Donald Trump is going to impeach himself. And I think what she clearly I think what she was saying here is that he is going to continue doing stuff that's foul. That's in a violation. Just wait. He'll continue. And now what we see is him actually doing this. You've had Judge Napolitano on Fox News who has talked about the Mueller report laying out clear examples of obstruction of justice. You have Corey Lewandowski going before Congress saying, I have executive privilege, which is crazy because he never, ever even worked for the White House or the American people. And so Democrats, frankly, Pelosi was trying not to do this. Your boy Donald Trump said, what the hell, I'm going to keep doing whatever I want to do.

He forced their hand today. Oh, I think that Nancy Pelosi did a great thing. She actually fed the meat that the base needed. I think this is pretty much what it's about. Whether or not there's some smoke there, whether or not something comes out of it, I really don't know. But just based on my experiences over the years following these type of stories, this is the most drastic that I've seen. But based on my experience following these stories over the years, whether it was Benghazi or Fast and Furious, the Mueller investigation, or even now when we're talking

about this impeachment inquiry, they usually don't amount to very much these impeachment, this impeachment inquiry, they usually don't amount to very much. And in this particular case, we don't know what we actually. Malik, one second. Malik, one second. You just actually have the audacity, the nerve to bring up Fascia the Furious in Benghazi. Last I checked, last I checked, President Obama never in a phone call to a foreign leader asked them to investigate

a political rival. An American citizen. I'm not done. I'm not done. I just want you to listen to what I said, other than your editorial. Hold on, hold on. I'm going to allow you to finish. Allow you to finish. Last I heard, I do not recall President Barack Obama withholding military aid to a country before making the phone call.

Last I call, last I recall, I don't think President Barack Obama asked someone who did not work for the White House to demand the FBI director be fired. I do not recall examples where President Barack Obama asked aides of his to lie about their conversations in firing the FBI director to obstruct his investigation when it came to the Mueller report. So if you want to bring up Benghazi and Fast and Furious, there's absolutely no, no correlation between those two issues and what the Democrats did today. As I was saying before you interrupted me, I've been around before, so I've seen

many instances before where our hair has been on fire, and particularly we can even talk about what's been happening since Donald Trump has been president, where everything was the smoking gun. Everything that we know of, we say, okay, well, yes, this is it, this is it,

this is it. And so this is yet another example that has existed over the years. Okay, well, I'm sorry. I'm going to let you finish my point. No, no. What's everything? You keep saying everything. What's everything? Well, are we talking about since Trump has been in office?

Yes. Well's everything? Well, are we talking about since Trump has been in office? Yes. Well, everything that our hair has been on fire about as far as the Trump administration, whether it was his dealings with Russia, whether it was the Mueller report, his business dealings, things that are related to members of his family. There's a number of things.

And we've always said, you know, and the media has always covered it. And guess what, Kelly? Guess what, Kelly? That's exactly what the issue here is. When you have Ivanka Trump, a member of the Trump White House, still receiving patents from China for her company while she works in the White House. No, no, no. Not hair on fire.

What you have here, Kelly, is example after example after example that when you have this impeachment inquiry, they're going to come up. And what you're seeing is Trump is going to have to defend these things and prove that he did not violate his oath of office. Kelly? Well, we had that situation before the phone call regarding Ukraine. We've had almost four years now of Trump doing things that are impeachable. The rare time that I agree with Malik here

is the fact that Trump has done a lot of stuff. The fact that it's taken Congress so long to remotely have a backbone is concerning. Not saying that they shouldn't have an impeachment inquiry, but right now we're in a predicament where it doesn't even matter what Congress does at this point. We're so close to the election. We now have a base for 45 in which, frankly, it doesn't matter what he does at this point. They are going to follow him and they are bolstered by the fact that 45 is bolstered with the impeachment inquiry or not. So it's almost like now there's an uphill battle that isn't even necessary because they waited too long. They still need to impeach

him. And like Jason was saying earlier, there has been no track record of a removal of a president due to impeachment. So it just still feels like a setting of political theater. It's necessary. But at the same time, we are now in a situation where I dare say it's almost irrelevant because we're already at the end of his term. We already have a base that, you know, is going to follow him no matter what comes out of this impeachment inquiry. So I disagree with that. that, you know, is going to follow him no matter what comes out of this impeachment inquiry. So... But I disagree with that. First of all, I don't believe you can even make the point

that it's irrelevant, because the reality is, the reality is Congress has an oversight responsibility. And just because a president has never been removed from office does not mean that you abdicate your responsibility. No, absolutely not. If the House chooses... But here's my point.

If the House chooses to impeach Trump, they don't control what happens in the senate all their job is to do what the house is supposed to do and i think again trump has continued to violate his oath of office and frankly democrats have reached a point where it is even as close it was like we can't continue to act as if we can wait for the election. He must be held accountable for what he does. And I get that point. Let me finish. I understand that point, but my thing is, why did it take... Kelly finished, then Jason.

I understand that point, Roland, but what I'm saying is, why did it take a phone call to Ukraine for Congress to act when we have over three years' worth of evidence and things that are on record, both in Congress and via Twitter and via other news outlets? Why did it take something happening to another nation in order for Congress to act on behalf of this one? And that's what's frustrating me that i i i dare say jason what happens is you allow you allow somebody you give somebody enough rope to hang themselves and i think what we've now discovered is nancy posey saying you now are at the end of your rope it's time to go yeah i understand that argument my only thing is know, how much rope do you need?

Exactly. I agree with Kelly here. I mean, the Mueller report was plenty of rope. That was, you know, for. Well, guess what? It's obvious that they needed more rope. And so here's the deal. Did they?

But did they really? Here's the thing, Roland. Here's the thing, Roland. Okay, guys, here's the deal. We can argue whether they should have done it earlier. The bottom line is this here. Until Nancy Pelosi was ready to make the move, it wasn't going to happen. That's true.

She's now at the point where, I mean, so it doesn't matter. I mean, we can say, oh, it should have happened two years ago, 18 months ago, 12 months ago. We're now at the point where the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has now given her approval to moving forward. That's all that matters. It don't matter it should have been done earlier. She was in control. Right. And I would also add that, you know, Congress not only has a job of oversight, but they control the purse string. Exactly. So when they say that you are supposed to get $400 million worth of military aid, you're supposed to get

$400 million worth of military aid. It's not supposed to be withheld based on the president's whims, and that is a threat to our democracy altogether. And I'll just say very quickly, Roland, that... And Malik, here's the deal. Hold on, Malik.

Here's the deal. It's interesting. Fox News' anchor Chris Wallace says there's meat on the bones of Trump impeachment inquiry. You have Judge Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst, who says what Trump has already admitted to is a crime. I mean, first of all, when you got Fox News saying...

Well, Napolitano doesn't get along with him very well. As someone who watches Fox News quite a bit, this is not something that's uncommon to Fox News, even during the Mueller investigation and some of the other things that have happened that the Trump administration or Trump himself has done. There have been plenty of people on Fox

who've actually said that there may be something here. The point that I was making earlier is that we continue to have these type of... And I am making the point that when was making earlier is that we continue to have this and I am making the point that when Fox News is admitting you got a problem you got a problem at this point we we still don't have the information I think Trump said that he would release the transcripts of the report no no no no he didn't no he didn't what he said is I will I would love to release it I would like to

release it just like he said but he tweeted no love to release it. I would like to release it. Just like he said, I'm going to release my taxes. No, that's not what he tweeted. He tweeted something totally different. He literally tweeted that it would be released on tomorrow. He said that it would be released on tomorrow. He just said that today. He tweeted that. Here's the deal.

Hold on. What is he releasing? He said he's releasing the full unredacted transcript of the conversation with the Ukraine minister. That's what he said. That's not, but hold up, that's not what Democrats ask. They want the actual report. I totally understand that. Right. And

that's based on the phone call. But no, but here's the piece. If the inspector general said it warranted a serious inquiry, why is his DOJ fighting the release of the complaint? I don't think that in this particular case that the Trump administration, no other administrations haven't done this,

but I don't think that a White House not wanting to release information that may be damaging or may not be damaging is something that's new. I think this is something that's pretty common. No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Here's the difference. No, here's the difference, Malik. Malik, the difference is here. The Department of Justice does not work for the president. He is not their personal lawyer. They are the Department of Justice. The inspector general is supposed to be independent. They are denying Congress their absolute right when it comes to this report. Well, that's what they're doing.

Well, you have to add you have to ask why. Well, from what I've been hearing all day on Fox News is that there was an actual debate, I think, between Attorney General Barr and I think some maybe the attorneys or something at the White House on whether or not this information should be released, and if so, what type of precedent that actually sets. And that's a valid conversation. That's literally a valid conversation to have. The law states... I understand what the law states. No, wait, wait, hold on, hold on, wait a minute.

Forget precedent. The law is clear. You are to turn over an Inspector General report to Congress. You don't get to go, um, it's a precedent. No. And, Roland, and just listening to what you're saying, and that's why I said

this may pretty much amount to nothing, so we're going to lead the American people down this road, and let's say nothing in the phone call was, you know, like, you know, beneath board or anything like that. And they decide that, OK, well, the impeachable offense is not turning over that information to Congress. I think it is. I think it's great for the base. It feeds the Democratic base. But at the same time, this is something that's going to galvanize Republicans and probably moderate people around the country to say, well, this is what we're going to impeach a president of the United States for.

I think it's something that's pretty questionable about that. Well, I tell you what. I tell you what. I tell you what. When they started impeaching Richard Nixon, his approval rating was 65%. And he resigned. And one second. When they were done, down in the 20 at 65%. And he resigned. And one second. When they were done, down in the 20s, and he did resign.

Do you know why? Because it was the hearings that detail the illegal, foul, impeachable things that he did. And I'm telling you right now, Donald Trump, you can say it fouls up the base, but the American public will get to actually hear what he has done. And we're going to see it. It's going to be public. All right, folks, I go to my next story in Dallas. The case, day two of the Amber Geiger trial. She, of course, is the former Dallas police officer who was on trial for murder for the shooting death of Botham Jean.

It has been an explosive day of testimony there. The prosecution in the case today showed the body cam video from that night. Here's what they aired. I'm going to go to the bathroom. No, you don't need to. Where's the sugar? The chocolate. You need to get the sugar out of the way. You're the one that's going to fill it. Yeah, go lay down. Hey, did you hear me?

Come on, say it. Did you hear me? Come on, say it again. Come on, say it again. Did you hear me? Ready? Restart CPR. 10-0-5. Make it here. 5-4-4-3, restart CPR. 10-0-3-4-14-78-78-8-1-1-0. 10-1. When that video was actually shown in court, the family of both jean they actually uh left the courtroom uh and

returned a little bit later uh of course in that video they also saw uh amber geiger trying to revive trying to revive uh both of jean and then of course when ems showed up they asked her to step out as well the defense they of course, tried their best to actually get some evidence removed, but the bottom line is that was rejected by the judge. Also in the proceedings today, again,

prosecutors said that with the videotape, the bodycam footage proves or supports their arguments is that Geiger should have known that she was in the wrong apartment, that the furniture in there did not match her furniture as well. Noticeable items in the apartment that should have been telltale signs to Geiger that it wasn't her unit and robbing officers had their guns drawn because they didn't know the situation they were

encountering but didn't shoot anyone they encountered, suggesting that Geiger's actions were not appropriate. And so we certainly will continue to follow this case as it proceeds. Going to a break right now. We come back. We're going to talk about Mississippi and how a lawsuit could they will change how voting is done in that essentially essentially, antebellum state. This is Roland Martin Unfiltered, back in a moment. 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 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. All right, folks, you've heard me talk a lot

about marijuana stock.org because I wanna keep you informed of investment opportunities that make sense. And we've all watched the growth of the cannabis industry. A recent report by New Frontier Data estimates the global cannabis market at more than $340 billion. We know that marijuana legalization is sweeping the country state by state. We also know that marijuana has a good cousin, the hemp plant, with a much higher concentration of CBD.

That means hemp gives you all the medical benefits of marijuana without getting you high. Until recently, hemp farming was practically illegal in the U.S. and heavily regulated by the DEA. However, the 2018 Farm Bill changed all that, making it legal to grow hemp CBD in the U.S., creating one of the largest commodities worldwide. They need land to grow all the plants, and that's where our good friends at 420 Real Estate come in. Their business model is simple. They buy land that supports hemp CBD grow operations and leads it to licensed high-paying tenants. That's right. There are hemp CBD landlords. You can get in on the action.

Now, what 420 Real Estate has done is offer this special deal for the folks who watch Roland Martin Unfiltered. Originally, the minimum investment level was $500. Now, you can invest in this crowdfunding campaign for as little as $200 up to $10,000. Again, this is a $340 billion industry that is still growing. You can participate with as little as $200 up to $10,000. Again, this is a $340 billion industry that is still growing. You can participate with as little as $200. To invest, go to marijuana stock.org. That's marijuana stock.org.

Get in the game and get in the game now. Folks, African-Americans make up 37% of all voters in Mississippi. They have the highest concentration of black elected officials in the country, yet there are no African- of all voters in Mississippi. They have the highest concentration of black elected officials in the country. Yet there are no African-Americans elected statewide in Mississippi. A lawsuit has been filed there to challenge how folks there vote. The lawsuit lays out that there are significant barriers, there are socioeconomic barriers and all sort of other disparities as well.

This, of course, is one of the numerous lawsuits being filed by civil rights activists. They say that essentially how voting takes place in Mississippi is tantamount to voter suppression. They say it also has an impact on turnout, including ID laws, physical barriers to registering to vote, as well as felony disenfranchisement. Jason, this is important because what we have seen really over the last, I would say, nine years since Republicans took control of most state legislatures in 2010, we have seen a massive rush to implement voter suppression tactics. We have nearly 2,000 fewer voting locations in 2018 than we had in the previous 10 years. You've seen them cut down on early voting locations.

You've seen the targeting of places where they limited early voting to only one polling location for two or three weeks because based upon data, black folks vote earlier than anybody else. You look at voter ID laws that have also been implemented. Even when they've been ruled to be racially driven, you've seen Republicans move forward to want them to continue this lawsuit in Mississippi, continues to challenge that. And it's very surprising that you largely have

Republicans who are advancing these efforts and not Democrats. It speaks to their issue in terms of wanting to limit those who vote to make it easier for them to win. Absolutely. I mean, we've seen this not only in Mississippi, but in states that are actually battleground states like North Carolina. We've seen Georgia, many other states where you have seen these voter suppression efforts because these states are, you know, very much in question in terms of who will win. And one of the things we know is if you can't beat them, cheat. That's what a lot of people do. And it's something that, you know, Republicans have been doing for a while, as we saw, particularly in North Carolina. But in Mississippi, as you stated, you know, that's the blackest state in the nation.

But yet it doesn't reflect in terms of some of the representation population in Mississippi that's black, but yet they're not, you know, being elected to Congress and particularly to the Senate. To me, it seems like there's a lot of foul play there, and it's something that hopefully the new administration and the new DOJ will look into. Malik, you're from Mississippi. This lawsuit speaks to this. this in 1890 there was a constitutional convention that was designed solely to limit black folks voting rights in

mississippi in 1890 it is where they stripped black folks of the right to vote there was one black delegate there because of his business interests. He literally went, he went along with white folks in Mississippi and actually said black folks should not have the right to vote in that state. He is, of course, he is not the most revered figure among black folks in Mississippi even today. But here's the problem in your state, Millett. After a change was made in that constitution, that is for a governor or anyone who is running for statewide office, it simply is not a matter of them winning more than 50% of the popular vote. They also must get a majority of the state's 122 house districts. That is the basis of this lawsuit. And they say point blank that this is a scheme designed to keep black folks out of

statewide offices. Agree or disagree? Well, I'm not familiar with this particular story. I think we may have talked about this before. So, I mean, I can't talk intelligently about it. The only first time I heard about it. Here's what it's called, Malik. Here's what it's called. It is called the Mississippi Provision. If no candidate wins the required majorities, popular vote, and in each of the 122 state houses, the Mississippi House then determines who wins. Right.

Again, I'm not familiar with this new lawsuit that you're referencing. I hadn't read up about it, so I really can't talk intelligently. But this is not a new law. This law has been in place in your home state since 1890. Okay, and I think you're saying that there are people who are challenging that and trying to get that changed. Right, and what I'm asking you is, do you believe it is fair that in your home state of Mississippi, in order to win a statewide office, you must not only win the popular vote by more than 50 percent, but you also must win the majority of votes in each 122 state house districts. Is that fair? Is that democracy? Well, I don't think that that's something that makes sense, especially now, or even if it made sense back then. But again, I'm not familiar enough with this, what you're talking about with

this story. Well, no, no, I'm simply asking you as somebody who follows politics, who's bought in politics, does it even sound sensible to have a state law that says not only you have to win the popular vote, but you've got to get the majority in each statehouse? face. It actually doesn't. But I don't know if that is something that's actually preventing more black people from winning office in Mississippi, though, or statewide office. Are you serious? Yes, that's what that's. Yeah, that's what I said. I don't know if that's something that's actually preventing. I remember reading about this before. And unfortunately, I can't just recall what what the back and forth on that. But, no, I mean, it doesn't sound like it's something that makes sense. But I don't know if that's something that's actually preventing black people from winning statewide office. That's something that you're saying that I believe the lawsuit is alleging. But that's an allegation.

And it seems like something that will definitely have to be proven in court. Kelly. Yes. I'm sorry. This Mississippi provision is sort of tantamount to saying, oh, if you want to run for citywide office, not only must you win the popular vote in the city, you also must win the majority of votes in every neighborhood. If you live in an area where you have a number of whites and you also got black folks, if you don't win the majority of the white neighborhoods, you don't win. It doesn't make sense. That's essentially what this law is. It makes no sense. No, it doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense to a racist who wants to maintain his power or her power in that respective state. But in terms of fairness, in terms of democracy, no, it doesn't make sense. It's both de facto and de jure segregation on its face. This law was rooted in racism. Now it is trickled into just du jour segregation, du jour discrimination, because it's just law now. But it's just ridiculous. Like, I have thoughts that I want

to formulate on it, but to answer your question specifically, is it democracy? No. Is it fair? No. Is it happening? Yes. Why? Because Mississippi has been known to be an inherently racist state, like most states in the Bible Belt. But Mississippi specifically has had a very strong history of not wanting black people in power. It's a lot. I mean, the reality is, OK, most of the black people in Mississippi, Jason, are in a certain number of House districts. To somehow think that black officeholders would not be impacted by this law is crazy. Yeah, I mean... We're talking Mississippi.

Yeah, I mean, with all due respect to my colleague, I have to disagree. I mean, I think, again, this is one of those clear ways. And it goes along, of course, with the with the way that segregation is designed and redlining and all the things that keep black people concentrated in one particular area or a couple of particular areas. And then you make it so that they can't use their collective power for their vote. And, you know, that is by design a way to limit, you know, black electoral power.

It is against our constitutional republic and it certainly should change. I gotta ask you this here because when they had this constitutional convention in 1890, this is what was stated. The leader of this effort literally said that this was being done to keep black folks out of power.

And since this was passed, and let me be real clear, Mella, can your home state of Mississippi, black people were elected to statewide office before this constitutional provision was changed in 1890. Since 1890, not a single African American has been elected to statewide office in Mississippi. Are you really trying to tell me you're not sure if this law hasn't impacted somebody black to be elected statewide? Yes, that's what I just said, but I do know, as I was just reading just now, that the Mississippi't seem to be in opposition to them amending the Constitution to remove that requirement for contested elections. So as far as the Republican Party... So why are we... So as far as...

Then why don't they just amend it? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Why doesn't it take a lawsuit? According to the Associated... One second. According to the Associated Press, the longtime chairman of the State House Elections Committee, Republican Bill Denny, said that during his 32 years in office, there has been no serious effort to change Mississippi's method of electing statewide officials.

Quote, I'm comfortable with it. This is the chairman of the House Elections Committee, a Republican. Well, according to what I just read from NPR, the communications director for the Republican Party has said that the Mississippi Republican Party does not oppose amending the Constitution to remove

the contested election requirement. That's what I read from NPR. Well, you might want to tell the House Elections Committee chairman, Republican Representative Bill Denny that, because clearly... Well, she may want to tell them that, but I just read, I just

told you what NPR reported, that the Mississippi Republican Party said, and she's the communications director for the Mississippi Republican Party, so no. So then why does it take a lawsuit? The Republican Party in Mississippi no, Republicans in Mississippi, the Republican Party in Mississippi does not oppose amending the Constitution to remove

the contested election requirement. So that's what the Republican Party, that's the Republican Party's position. So why won't Republicans in Mississippi amend it then? Well, you have to ask them that. I don't know if this is something that actually has to go through a congressional process. I don't know. But the Republican Party.

No, it's not congressional, Malik. Malik, Malik, it's a state constitution. Well, I don't know if this is something that has to go through an actual process. Malik, Malik, in order to change the state constitution, it has to go through a process. Right. And so Mississippi Republican Party are saying that they do not, that they do not. I mean, you can say whatever you want to say about it, but I'm telling you what the communications director for the Mississippi Republican Party said, that they do not object to it. If I was able to read a little more about it, maybe I have other information for you. But that's the Republican position in Mississippi via the communications director for the Republican Party. I understand that it doesn't fit the narrative that you want to make about my great home state of Mississippi.

But that's exactly what the Mississippi Republican Party said. Kelly, this is what Malik and the Republican Party is doing. They're playing three-card Monty. No, I'm reading NPR just like you just read something from the Associated Press. So if we're going to talk about what my state actually believes, that's what it said. It doesn't fit your narrative. I need to get rolling.

That's what NPR said. I need to get rolling. Kelly is very clear. If the chairman of the Mississippi House Elections Committee, a Republican, is comfortable with it, the party can say whatever they want to. But the members of the party in power, they ain't changing nothing. Kelly.

Again, if something benefits you, why change it? This is a wheel that does not need reinventing, according to those in power in Mississippi. Is it something that needs changing, objectively speaking? Yes. Why? Because what's happening on the state level of Mississippi does not reflect the constituents of Mississippi, which is predominantly black.

That's pretty much all there is to it. If they want to change it, they should. Malik here is saying that the communications director is saying that they're open to amending it. I would like to have money where her mouth is on that. It's just a situation where you can talk a lot of lip service, but until, you know, something happens, then I'm not to trust what you're saying. I have to go based off of what is actually happening in that state. And what's happening in that state is that black people are not winning elections because of this de jure segregation, this de jure legislation that has been on the books since 1890, as you said. And before 1890, you're saying we had more black

people in Mississippi legislation, basically right after slavery. We had more black people in legislation in Mississippi before 1890 than we do in 2019. I don't, you know, like Malik was saying, he isn't necessarily sure. You can speculate, but the stats are there that it's because of what happened in 1890 that black people are not in power in Mississippi, even though just on its face, they should be based off of constituency, based off of values and what Mississippians want in that state. Well, I just want to say that according to NPR, what NPR is reporting, that this is about contested elections. If I was able to do a little more research, I would have some more information about that. But NPR specifically said that this is about contested elections.

So I'm assuming that's a difference than the general election. No, actually, no, that's not what the lawsuit is about. Okay, well, that's what NPR said, though. Allow me to finish. The lawsuit is about changing the law, stating that because the law was passed with racist intent, which is undeniable, it was undeniable. The people who tried to change it, they're on record as saying they were changing this to keep black people from winning. That is the basis of a lawsuit, not contested elections, not general.

So they want to change. They want to rule this law to be unconstitutional on racial grounds. That is the goal of it. We certainly will keep up with it. But bottom line is this here again, I shall say it to all the folks who are watching, to all those can see and hear my voice, there were African Americans who were elected in Mississippi statewide, a significant number before 1890. Since 1890, do the math, since 1890, not a single African American has been elected statewide in Mississippi because of this law. So those who changed it got exactly what they want. That is the disenfranchisement of African-Americans. And I would dare say any African-American in Mississippi, any African-American from Mississippi,

any African-American with family in Mississippi Mississippi and any person of conscience in Mississippi. Going to a commercial break. When we come back, we're going to talk about the Jamel Moore case with his mother, how Ed Buck, he's now in jail, but Jamel Moore's mother is still not happy with how she was treated by Los Angeles authorities before Ed Buck's arrest. You're watching Roller Martin Unfiltered. Back in a moment. You want to support Roller 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 All right, folks, that's my homeboy there, Gerald Albright,

one of the folks performing at the Life Luxe Jazz Experience in Cabo, November 7th through 11th. I'm going to be there as well. Weekend-long event held at the Omnia Day Club in Los Cabos, nestled on the Sea of Cort Club in Los Cabos, nestled on the Sea of Cortez in Los Cabos, Mexico. Folks, it's going to be an amazing time over those four days. We're going to have lots of great food

and drink and golf and spa, health and wellness, you name it. The second annual Life Love Jazz Experience. Of course, some great people, entertainers are going to be there. Comedian Mark Curry, Gerald Albright, Alex Bunyan, Raul Madon, Incognito, Pieces of a Dream, Kirk Whalum, Average White Band, Donnie McClurkin, Shalaya, Alex Bunyan, Raul Madon, Incognito, Pieces of a Dream, Kirk Whalum, Average White Band,

Donnie McClurkin, Shalaya, Roy Ayers, Tom Brown, Ronnie Laws, and Ernest Quarles. I'll be broadcasting Rolling Martin Unfiltered for that Thursday and Friday there as well. And so we want you to be in the house. It's going to be a great time. Go to lifeluxjazz.com, L-I-F-E-L-U-X-E-J-A-Z-Z.com for more information. Packages are going fast. You also want to book it soon LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM

LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM

LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM LIFE LUX JAZZ.COM Ed Buck, of course, the big-time Democratic donor who is now in prison. He is being charged on the federal level for the deaths of two black men, including Jamel Moore. Well, Jamel Moore's mother, she has been, of course, speaking out for a significant time on this issue. And she says justice is finally upon us. Joining us right now is Letitia Nixon, who is joining us along with her attorney, Hussein Turk, as well as Jasmine Koenig. All three have been fighting in this case. Folks, how are we doing? Good. Glad to be here.

I mean, first and foremost... No, I was just going to say, you know, Roland, this is not over for us. We're continuing on. I mean, there's a lot of work that still needs to be done, but it feels good to at least right now know that he's in custody, right? Yes, definitely. Well, that's what I wanted to ask you, because the reality is you had, unfortunately, your son dying, a second man dying, a third person overdosed. And the reality is, as Jasmine, you and others have been saying, is that this man was a menace to society and that the only way to stop him from doing what he was doing was to put him behind bars.

Granted, he has not been convicted, but the fact that he is in jail means that he is behind bars and that maybe it will save the life of someone, especially an African-American. Letitia? Yes, very much so. First, I want to tell you thank you so much for covering this story from the very beginning. We didn't have a lot of people that backed us up, but you did. And I just want to say thank you. And that was the whole purpose of us coming forward was to save black men from being victimized. This fight is not over. We want justice for Timothy Dean.

We want justice for the other victims as well. We want justice, period. And Jasmine, I think that really is the point. First of all, when we talk about this idea of Black Lives Matter, the fact that African Americans have to protest, have to call media outlets, have to push things on social media, you cannot tell me, you cannot convince me that if a young white girl

had died at the apartment of a black drug dealer, that authorities in L.A. would pretty much ignore that. You cannot convince me that that would be the case. But clearly they said Jamel Moore's life was not that important. Timothy's life was not that important. And thank goodness you and others made this an issue to force them to pay attention. Yeah, I mean, look, in the case of Mac Miller, I think I went on Twitter and said, wow, who knew the feds were carrying the torch

for Mac Miller and the whole justice for Mac Miller and his death? It's like, here we are. At that time, it had been two years and we had been asking for the feds and for anyone to do something. And it's like, but that's what black people have to do when it's our lives. we have to keep fighting and

fighting and fighting I mean we're still in this fight today and luckily we have people like Hussein Turk on our side who also is working with us and has been like such a huge part of this victory just in terms of the from the legal side

of it because you have to fight fire with water, right? And, you know, Hussein is like the water. He puts it out. And Hussein, Hussein, I gotta ask you, I mean, as a lawyer, I mean, surely, even you're saying, guys, really, that two people are gonna die in a man's apartment

and he still is walking around, he still is inviting people to his apartment. And it was this overdose of a third person for somebody to go, OK, I guess we've reached our minimum now of three. So now we're going to take action. That is stunning. It is stunning. And I want to add that it wasn't just two deaths and a third overdose. We actually had to take over the course of two years and almost 60 days, seven or eight additional witnesses to the sheriff's department to give their personal eyewitness statements about how they too were victimized, how they too were drugged, how they too were sexually battered, assaulted, harassed,

neglected, the victims of hate crimes by Ed Buck. So it was several people, several Black gay men who were victimized, who the police had information on, and they did nothing about it. And that's the basis of our civil lawsuit, is that the county has a policy, a concrete policy, of ignoring the criminal reports made by black gay men because in their eyes, their lives don't matter. And that's why, unfortunately, we're in the position that we're in where we have to stand up and say, yes, black gay lives do matter. You asked me if I was surprised as a lawyer by all of this.

And unfortunately, I'm not. Not only am I a practitioner of the law, but I also have studied the law enough to know that it was designed for this purpose. The law was designed to maintain white supremacy and white hegemony. The law was not designed in this country for people of color to use against white people. And that is why we have to push that is why we have to be strategic and that is why we have to be very creative and convent and unconventional when we are saying black gay lives matter because they do but in this system in which we live they're not supposed to go ahead um leticia Jackie, uh, Lacey, the district attorney, you would think, you would

think a black woman elected DA would be a hell of a lot more aggressive than she was in this case. You would think. You would think that, but, uh, Jackie Lacey is flaky Lacey. Um, she doesn't care. I mean, my team, they pushed, everything was delivered to Jackie Lacey

and the West Hollywood Sheriff's Department on a platter. Everything. And she did nothing. Everything was delivered. All the victims except for one.

Maybe one or two. But here's the thing. You know, Timothy Dean should be alive today. Because Jackie Lacey had the opportunity to prosecute Ed Buck and the death of Ms. Nixon's son, Jamal Moore. Had she done that and he been taken into custody and prosecuted and convicted, he wouldn't have been in apartment 17 that night for Timothy Dean to die, nor for anyone else to go over there and overdose. And so it's really her fault. And that's why, even though we know we still have a lot of work to do, we're so happy that

the feds have stepped in and snatched this case from her because there was very little faith that her office was going to be able to get anything done. When they arrested him, he was facing five years, eight months max on those charges. When the Fed stepped in and took over, now Ed Buck, on each count of administering the drugs that caused the death, 20 years minimum, life without parole maximum. And, of course, I said this the other day. I said I'm quite sure when she's up for reelection, the line of folks running against her might be as long as a line of people trying to get a Popeye's chicken sandwich. Because a lot of people are not at all happy with her leadership. And I think in terms of what really happened here is a shame.

Letitia, your final thoughts. What do you want our viewers and our listeners to do next? Because as you said in the opening, this is not over. I just want everybody to know that we are still fighting. We are still fighting this fight. I want to thank the viewers, too. I want to thank everybody that's been there. Follow us on Justice, the number four,

Jamel, G-E-M-M-E-L.org. And you can also follow Jasmine. She is phenomenal. I am Jasmine.com. But just, there's so much going on behind the background in the background scenes I mean it just it just really

appalled me that Jackie Lacey is there they're trying to take credit for everything and no they can't take credit and discredit my team because they work hard and we're still working hard I'm grateful thank you again roland we love you roland thank you so much day one day one well i appreciate it and bottom line

is uh this is a you know i spoke today to the national black mcdonald operators here in houston for their biannual meeting and i told them said, this is precisely why we have to have black media, how we have to fund it. We have to support it because the reality is we can't expect, or we can't even hope that somebody else is going to do the right thing and cover these stories. And I, and I, and I, and I dare say, Jasmine, look, if it wasn't for your activism, if it wasn't for you sending the stuff out,

us putting it on the air, putting Tom Joyner, these national media outlets would not have cared because they were treating this story as just, okay, find somebody who died, somebody who can be ignored, and that's why Black Lives Matter, again, in newsrooms, not just when it comes to law enforcement as well. Teamwork makes the dream work. Hussein, Nana, Ms. Nixon, the Dean family, all of the folks here in L.A. Like, I know I get a lot of credit, but it really was teamwork. I don't do anything by myself. And our squad runs deep and wide, and we got it done.

We have family. All right. Well, we certainly got it done. We have family. All right. Well, we certainly, Hussein, we appreciate it. Jasmine, thanks a lot. Letitia, thanks a lot. We're certainly going to keep covering this. We're not going to let this thing die away again until Ed Buck is brought to justice. Folks, we appreciate it.

Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Love you, Robin. All right. Thank you very much. Love you guys as well. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Love you, Robin. All right. Thank you very much. Love you guys as well. Thanks a lot. All right, folks. Interesting story out of Michigan where the prosecutor has ruled that a city clerk in a Detroit suburb altered records tied to absentee ballots cast in last year's general election to make it look like they did not have valid signatures. Southfield City Clerk Sharikia Hawkins was arraigned Monday morning on six felony counts, including falsifying election

records, forgery of a public record, and misconduct in office. Now, of course, this happens the day before National Voter Registration Day, and so efforts all across the country have been taking place, social media as well, to highlight the importance of voter registration. Here is a PSA put together by the great Jennifer Lewis. I don't care who you are or where you work. Register to vote. I say the election just sit home and lurk. Register to vote.

Please. Register to vote. Please. Register to vote. I'm asking you. Register to vote. We all gotta go. Register to vote. We all gotta go. Register to vote.

Register to vote. Get out, get out, get out. Register to vote. Register to vote. Woo! Register to vote. Register to vote. Ah, Jennifer Lewis doing what Jennifer Lewis does.

All right, our panel's going to love this next story. And, you know, we keep making the point on this show that cops can be stupid cops no matter what they look like well a black cop in florida folks uh is out of a job dennis turner was terminated yesterday uh and charged with battery against the children i'm sorry and battery charges against these children arrests have been dropped this is a man who arrested two six-year-old girls in Orlando. Orlando Police Chief Orlando Rolon said Dennis Turner, who had been suspended after the incidents took place Thursday at a charter school there, did not follow the department's policy regarding approval for a supervisor

for any arrest of a minor younger than 12 and apologized to the children's parents. Now, they claim he is a school resource officer. No, he's a cop. And Kelly, what's shameful here is not just that this officer arrested these children. What's also shameful is that this charter school allowed for these kids to be arrested and to be handcuffed. And as somebody who supports charter schools, I will call them out and cuss them out. It's like I would if this was a traditional school, if this was an all-white school,

if this was an all-black school. It is idiotic for us to be sitting here criminalizing our children. You handcuff and arrest two six-year-old kids? There are no words to describe how idiotic and how outraged I feel about this. The fact that we are talking about this is a great thing. This is not the only two instances in Florida

in which this has happened. My understanding is that there have been over 2,000 cases such as this between the ages of 5 and 12 children in Florida who have been arrested over the course of a school year, this past school year, or, you know, within the past five years at the very least. It is absolutely insane. And I've said on your show before regarding, you know, police officers who just have no, they just can't conceive other people being human beings outside of themselves. If you have something in your mind that does not connect with humanity, if you cannot put yourself in someone else's shoes in your job such that you are protecting

other people you don't need to have that job if you are any client facing job career such as a police officer especially police officer at an elementary school or a charter school if you cannot see that person that child as a child and try to discipline them as such to the extent that you can in a charter school or should be disciplining them in a charter school, you shouldn't be in that job. They're not criminals. They're six years old.

And the fact that they even, he even did something of this nature, black, white, or indifferent, it's absolutely stupid of him. So yeah, he deserves his job to be gone and I have no hard feelings regarding it. Jason. You know, as a parent, this one hits pretty hard.

We oftentimes talk about the way that black children are treated in schools, the school discipline issue that we have, both in traditional schools and charter schools. And one of the things that, you know, it makes me think of, first of all, the age of criminal responsibility around the world is usually around 16. So for you to hold a six-year-old accountable and put them in cuffs, you know, I think about my daughter and some of the anxiety and fear she has, you know, if she were to come home and the things that I would have to deal with

and that our family would have to deal with after being put in handcuffs like a criminal, you know, that would be really hard on our family. And I'm telling you right now, I would raise hell in that district. It wouldn't just be good enough that they were fired, that that officer was fired. I would go after the police. I would go after the school district. I would go after the principal. I would go after

anybody who was there to allow that to happen. And the last thing that I want to say is that there's a thing, you know, some research that came out of Georgetown University called adultification, where we start to look at young black girls as if they're grownups when they're at the age of five.

We start sexualizing them. We think that they need less nurturing. We think that they need less protection. And I think that this is a perfect example of that. And when you look at the research on adultification that came out of Georgetown, the researchers, uh, the people they, uh, gauged were not all white. This was a multiracial field.

So this is how white supremacy works. It's not that black people are immune to it. It's not something that melanin blocks for us. Melanin helps us with the sun, but it doesn't help us with white supremacy It's not that black people are immune to it. It's not something that melanin blocks for us. Melanin helps us with the sun, but it doesn't help us with white supremacy and the things that come from it, including the things that can harm our own daughters and children. Well, absolutely right. And so, again, this officer should have been fired. An apology simply is not enough. Some common damn sentence to taking place place where he says, I'm not going to arrest a six-year-old. All right, folks, before we go, our final story here. We might remember, of course, in 1968 in Mexico City, John Carlos and Tommy Smith stood

on that platform and receiving their Olympic medals with their shoes off and raised black fist. They were run out of the Olympic Village, expelled from the Olympics, and were essentially crucified in America. Well, on November 1st, those two individuals will be inducted into the Olympic Hall of Fame, the Olympic and Paralympic Hall of Fame. Of course, they were, again, targeted,

and so many people attacked them. Their lives were in many ways ruined. Divorces took place. Depression set in. Couldn't find jobs because they chose to protest racism and oppression, police oppression and brutality in Jim Crow in the United States. And so we certainly want to congratulate John Carlos and Tommy Smith on their induction into the Hall of Fame taking place on November 1st. We owe them a debt of gratitude for being warriors in the fight against racial injustice.

All right, folks, we got to go. And look, some of y'all might think, I see some of y'all comments. You know, Malik did not run off the show. He was scheduled to leave us at 645. And so he didn't get mad and storm off the show. So just y'all cut all that nonsense out. He'll be back on the show. So, but'all cut all that nonsense out. He'll be back on the show. But he needs to read that Mississippi Constitution from 1890, though.

I mean, he really needs to go do that. All right, folks, if y'all want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered, please go to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Y'all can check it out. Of course, we are all about covering our stories. As y'all know, I'm here in Houston speaking to the National Black McDonald Operators Association. More than 1,800 franchisees all across the country. We're going to be streaming later for you

my keynote address to the NBMOA here. And so we also want to thank Kelly and Jason for joining our panel. I shall be back in studio tomorrow, but back on the road in Lima, Ohio on Thursday, speaking there. And then Seattle, I'll see you guys on Saturday for an event there as well. So it's been quite the busy week with me being in New York, Houston, back in DC, Lima, Ohio, back to DC, then to Seattle.

But hey, somebody got to do it and And speaking truth to power and of course, covering our issues. And so again, go to RollerMartUnfiltered.com. Join our Bring the Funk fan club. We need your support, folks. It is your dollars to make this show possible. We need to have our own independent media speaking to our issues. And that is why we are here. And we it's about speaking truth to power. So I appreciate it, folks. Thank you so very much. I gotta go. I'll see you guys tomorrow. Holla from Houston. This is an iHeart Podcast.