#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 9.25: Trump's Ukraine transcript; Congress proceeds w/ impeachment inquiry, GA inmate dies in cell

Episode Date: September 27, 2019

9.25.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump's Ukraine transcript released; Congress proceeds with impeachment inquiry; Moss Point Mayor Mario King is here to talk about the controversy between him and the Board of Aldermen; GA inmate Shali Tison dies in cell after asking for help; ATF Supervisor with a Nazi tattoo is being sued for discriminating against black agent; Founder of the Sacramento Observer, one of the oldest black newspapers has died. - #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, today is Wednesday, September 25th, 2019. Coming up next on Roller Martin Unfiltered, Donald Trump releases not a transcript, a memorandum of a conversation he had with the Ukrainian president where he asked them to, yes, investigate his rival. How stupid is this, White House?

They sent their talking points to Democrats. And then sent an email saying they were recalling the email just a little too late. Congress is moving forward, of course, with their impeachment inquiry. Republicans are not too happy. I talked this morning with Karen Bass, Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus,

and Tom Joyner. I will share that with you. Moss Point Mayor Mario King is here to talk about the controversy between him and the Board of Aldermen in that city. Video has been released of Georgia inmate Shalai Tyson dying in his cell. We'll show you that video and talk with his mother and attorney.

Folks, disturbing video. An ATF supervisor with a Nazi tattoo is being sued for discriminating against a black agent. The founder of the Sacramento Observer, one of the oldest black newspapers in America, has died. And a woman is accusing an official in North Carolina, NAACP, of sexual harassment. Wait until you see these details. They go back, folks, two years. What will the national NAACP do? Will they remove this guy from office who's actually trying to run to be state conference president of the NAACP?

Wait until I share you what this sister had to say. It's time to bring the funk on Rolling Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. Putting it down from sports to news to politics With entertainment just for kicks He's rolling It's on for a royal It's rolling, Martin Rolling with rolling now He's funky, he's fresh, he's real The best you know, he's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best.

You know he's rolling, Martin. Yeah. Donald Trump released this. First of all, let me just correct something. All these media people have been saying that Donald Trump released a transcript of his conversation with the Ukrainian president. That is a lie. It was not a transcript. It was a memo that had some of the comments that were made on this phone call.

It was not the actual transcript of the conversation with the president of Ukraine. What did that memo actually show? That he repeatedly pushed the president of Ukraine to reopen the investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Now, here's the deal. That so-called investigation has been totally debunked. Republicans want you to believe that Joe Biden is corrupt, so is his son. That is a lie.

It was an investigation. In fact, when Joe Biden, as vice president, went to the president to say to fire this Ukrainian attorney general, guess who also wanted the guy fired? Numerous other nations in the West. International Monetary Fund and others because they said the guy would not investigate

corruption now here's also interesting uh nbc news reported on tuesday that don trump called nancy pelosi and said to her hey can we work out some kind of deal over this uh ukrainian deal she's like tell your folks stop breaking the damn law and then went out announced the impeachment inquiry was going to begin folks what we're now dealing with is a White House that is running scared because guess what? Somebody wrote a lot of checks and now they ask, can't cash them. Then you have Rudy Giuliani just constantly lying on television. He don't know what the hell he was saying.

Now he's claiming that it was the State Department who actually sent him there. Why would the State Department send you to negotiate an issue that they can easily negotiate? Folks, this administration is lying. Now they have to now deal with an actual impeachment inquiry. This morning, the Tom Journal Morning Show, I talked with Karen Bass of California. She, of course, is the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Here's what she had to say. I guess Speaker Pelosi finally said, OK, enough is enough.

It's time to now take this thing to the next level. Absolutely. That's exactly what happened. And, you know, I also serve on the Judiciary Committee. So we had been investigating the situation. There are so many different areas of this administration and of this president that are corrupt, that have violated the law. But, you know, this time, I think one of the reasons why it crossed the line is that we know that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and most of us believe he was complicit with that. Trump was. But this is the election in 2020. So the idea that the president would begin to interfere in the 2020 election is just, that was just a line too far.

Was that the target point for you, Congresswoman? Well, no, for me. Because you've been busy on the Judiciary Committee, obviously. But I was just wondering, what was that moment for you where you decided enough was enough? Well, for me, I mean, truthfully, I've decided enough was enough a long time ago. But what was very important to me is that I felt like when we reached the point of moving forward with impeachment, that our entire caucus needed to be united, that the leadership needed to be on the same page.

And remember, we have multiple committees that are involved in investigation. Now, you know impeachment is under the jurisdiction of judiciary, but we also have financial services, government reform, intelligence, ways and means, foreign affairs. All of those committees are looking at various aspects of this administration. And I think that for us to have our strongest position, all of the committee chairs, the leadership of the caucus, as well as the majority, overwhelming majority of the members, need to all be on the same page. That is what came together yesterday. I also believe that at the end of the day, Donald Trump was going to keep doing what,

first of all, he believed and he has publicly stated that I can do whatever I want. As president, I have complete immunity to do whatever I want. I think that's a part of this deal. He was going to keep doing whatever he wanted to do until Democrats finally said, no, we have to take this. He was going to continue. And you know what? I think that he probably will continue as well, because I truly believe, and I'm sure you do as well, that he has no clue, even though he's been in the job for over two years, he has no clue what this job is, and he cannot control his behavior. This is the way he's behaved for over 70 years before he got to the White House. I don't

know why we would think that coming to the White House, he would have a complete change in behavior. He's never had to be accountable to anyone in his entire life. And so as he goes about the presidency, he interprets everything the same way. Well, all I have to do, if I did it in public, you can't say it was breaking the law. So I'm going to rob a bank. And as long as I tell everybody I'm going to do it, it's not illegal. It's the type of insanity that we have been living with for the last two and a half years. I believe he's an existential threat, not just to our nation, but an existential threat to the planet. All right, Congresswoman Rowland, in a perfect world, what's the next step

to impeachment, and can we get it done before the primaries well uh first of all what was announced yesterday was the caucus being united in an impeachment inquiry now we have to figure out exactly how that is going to play out so i have a judiciary is meeting tonight i'm sure the other committees are meeting tonight as well to figure out how this is going to roll out. But essentially, we will continue the investigation. Naming it and declaring it as an impeachment inquiry should strengthen our hands with the court, because you know that because he is lawless, because he's not going to pay attention to subpoenas or anything, we're going to have to take everything to the court. But when it is now an inquiry, the court should move quicker. When the investigation reaches a certain point,

then we will make a decision as to whether or not we enter articles of impeachment and what those articles would be. What are the reasons we are going to impeach him? That will be the next step. And how long that's going to take, I do not know. But pretty soon we are going to be in the middle of a presidential campaign. And then I think that the scenario will change again. Congressman, just in terms of day by day kind of process, how quickly do you see things rolling out? Because the concern I have is about when you say going to the courts, and Donald Trump has not wasted any time in making a ton of appointees to the various levels of court.

So I'm just wondering in terms of how quickly you see this moving through the legal system? Well, that is going to be hard to predict, but I will tell you that there are some decisions that we're waiting for by October. And so, you know, obviously October is next week, so we'll see. And that's from judiciary. That decision is whether or not the courts will allow us to have the evidence that went into the Mueller report. So we have the Mueller report, but what is the Mueller report based on? The grand jury testimony, the evidence. So the court is supposed to rule next month. So we'll see. I think that will be an indication as to whether or not that ruling comes down in October. Now that we are in an impeachment inquiry, you know, we'll see if it happens then

or if it takes longer. California Congresswoman Karen Bass, Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. We appreciate it. Thanks a lot. You're welcome. All right, folks, our super panel. Let's break it down with Dr. Chris Messler, longtime Georgetown constitutional law professor,

Dr. Ravi Perry, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Howard University. Joining me here in the studio is A. Scott Bolden, former Chair, National Bar Association Political Action Committee, Monique Presley, Legal Analyst, Crisis Manager, Eugene Craig, CEO, Eugene Craig Organizations. I will start with you, Dr. Perry. When you look at what is going on here, Trump was like, no, this was a perfect phone call. Everything was great. But the reality is the release of this memo, not a full transcript, is actually worse than what most people actually expected. Absolutely it is.

I mean, it's surprising that they actually released it. But he really was pushed into a corner and had to release it because the Democrats made it clear that it would be obstruction of justice really to not release the transcript. And so, but this is not a transcript, as you just indicated. It's a memo that shows the recordings of some of the people who were on the call along with the two presidents. And so the challenge that we have right now is that this is the only the fourth time that we have had an impeachment process of a president. And it normally takes about four to six months for it to clear the entire House. But then ultimately it has to end up in the Senate and it has to end up in the same Senate that's

controlled by Mitch McConnell who of course is a close friend of the president and ultimately it will require if we want for the Democrats if they want the impeachment to actually result in removal of office and not just a slap on the wrist like it was, for example, for President Clinton, then it will require a supermajority of senators to actually require Trump to be removed. And that would mean that we would need at least 20 Republican senators to actually choose to vote for impeachment. And right now, there is none on record having ever supported that.

Chris Messler, what you have here, obviously, are Republicans. They are doing their best to defend Trump. The Trump administration sent out their talking points. Some idiot actually sent it to the Democrats, then tried to do a recall of the email. Now, it was out in public within three minutes. But the fact of the email. Now, it was out in public within three minutes. But the fact of the matter

is, Donald Trump has done a number of things. Now he has backed himself into a corner because he wants to say, hey, I didn't do anything wrong, but it doesn't look good at all where you're trying to essentially ask a foreign nation

to do something to impact your campaign adversary? All right. So, you know, it's clear that I'm a Republican, a bitter Republican. But, Roland, I don't want to get into the discussion about the politics of this. I just want to be clear so folks understand the process of impeachment, because I think there's too much confusion about that. So if you would just allow me to do that first, and then we can talk about the other stuff later. So for me, I think what folks have to understand is this. Impeachment and removal is a two-part process. So Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

First and foremost, think about impeachment this way. Impeachment is essentially an indictment. They have only to date been two presidents who have been impeached. Okay. So then there is a process of removal where there is the trial in the Senate. The Senate ultimately decides whether or not the person should be removed. And there's also an important thing that folks need to understand about the trial process. The trial process in the Senate, the chief justice would proceed, would essentially preside over that process. But here's the thing. The chief justice is presiding primarily for the

purpose of ruling on evidentiary claims. The Senate majority leader, for example, could say each witness is entitled to only 20 minutes of presenting their argument. And the Chief Justice cannot overrule that. So I think folks need to understand that even if the president is impeached, it doesn't mean that he is going to be removed from office. I think the question from a purely political standpoint is does the president want to go down in history as the third president to be impeached? is that what people don't understand is that I know Chris wanted to divorce politics from this, but we have to be honest,

impeachment is a political process. It is not a legal process. So for instance, when you hear these Republicans say, he did nothing criminal. First of all, the constitution does not state that high crimes and misdemeanors has to be criminal. First of all, the Constitution does not state that high crimes and misdemeanors has to be criminal. When you hear Giuliani say, nothing done illegal,

the Constitution does not stipulate that high crimes and misdemeanors has to be illegal. It is a political judgment of Congress that the President is not acting in the best interest of the nation and that office.

And so this entire press process is inherently political with plenty of legalities. Oh, no, no, no, no. I got you. No, no. But I'm saying that, Chris, because I want Scott to comment, because I need people to understand that, because when you hear Republicans defend Trump by saying this wasn't criminal, this wasn't legal, what they're trying to do is in this whole CSI world is muddy the waters

to get people to think, well, that was no crime that was committed by Trump and impeachment is not talking about crime. Not at all. It's got plenty of legalities and legal stuff, but it's purely political, and it is in Article II of the Constitution. What's really interesting about the Republicans

is that even this, even this that's brought those who want to impeach the president in the House up to something like 200, maybe 204. No, they're actually not up to 217. 217. They only need 218 in order to file articles of impeachment or to move forward on it. But the other thing is this, right?

If the Republicans want to talk about something not being illegal, what he did four days before he had this call, because he knew he had the call coming up, he froze the $390 million. We call that in criminal law, we call that insurance, because now you're gonna have the quid pro quo conversation. If that conversation didn't go well, Trump on that call was gonna say, I froze in the 390.

Now let's really talk, right? So he had his insurance, and then he talked about corruption, he talked about the defense, he talked about Russia, then he gratuitously just threw in Biden and his son. You don't have to do that whether you're the president or

just you and I talking. So there's intentionality in the fact that you raised these two individuals and Strike Force or whatever the other company was that was Democratic related when the DNC got it. It was the DNC server. The DNC server.

And so there is intentionality throughout this memo. I tell you though, it is the beginning, not the end. They just turned over the complaint, the whistleblower. The whistleblower complaint. The whistleblower complaint. The whistleblower is going to appear before council, whether it's the Congress, publicly or privately, right? And then think about it, Roland. All the witnesses and open questions about these two documents is

really where you get to the core of it. Monique, this is what is so laughable about this. The Trump administration fought, used the DOJ to fight the release of the whistleblower complaint. That is actually what started this. They pissed off Congress in their latest effort to say, we're not turning over anything. Use the Department of Justice to block the actual whistleblower complaint. Then all of a sudden, the reporting then begins to come out where clearly the people who were aware of the whistleblower complaint start dropping dimes to the New York Times, to the Washington Post. Dropped to the New York Times, new story to the Washington Post. Dropped new story to the New York Times, new story to the Washington Post.

And it went from blocking a whistleblower complaint, turning it over to Congress, to all of a sudden saying that were things that were said on a call that were filed, that then went to going after Biden, then it went to delaying the $400 million. Their ignorance literally forced Nancy Pelosi to finally break and say enough is enough. No, I disagree 100%. Trump uses the DOJ as his personal attorney. Yes, yes. And if Scott was his personal attorney,

he would have been fighting to try to keep the whistleblower complaint from being turned over too because this whistleblower. It would have been turned over privately. We wouldn't have this blowout. If it was going to be. ravi hold on one second when he finished your point then i'm gonna go to ravi to come back to eugene if it was going to be turned over once we lost that battle it would be turned over privately but it has the goods is the problem the you know they released this memo and then we see pieces of the call and because trump is so delusional he's like what's the problem what's the issue and everybody's like

i don't blame them this was not naivete they knew this was like but but but here's But here's the piece. Robbie, go ahead. You want to jump in. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think it's really important that we remember that Trump knew that this was an important phone call. He made the call the day after Mueller testified, in the House of Representatives. And so, like you said, Roland, and he withheld a few days before that $400 million. This is very much obviously a quid pro quo, and we've never seen this as clear as day since we had the Nixon episodes in the 70s

where we have a president who was so foolishly blind to the law. This is what happens when you are ignorant of the law. Eventually, it comes up, it catches up to you. And we've known this about this president from the beginning. He never had respect for the institutions of democracy. He never had respect for the rule of law. He never even read the Constitution. When you see him at events, he doesn't even know the national anthem. And so it's not surprising that eventually all this comes up and catches him, because if you don't know the system that you're actually governing, then you easily find out that a phone call you can make, you just impeached yourself. But Eugene, you're dealing with an ignoramus

who actually said early in his presidency, they tell me I can do whatever I want. He has operated from this whole idea. I can't be indicted. I got immunity. I can sit here and run my companies and get paid. I can do whatever I want. I mean, he is literally pushing the envelope.

And the reality is Democrats were holding back, holding back, holding back, trying to sue, trying to go to the courts, trying to get the courts to rule a certain way. He said, to hell with you guys having actual oversight of the executive branch. I'm not turning over this. You can subpoena this. I'm ignoring you. I'm not. Oh, no, the law says that the IRS must turn over tax returns. Damn that.

I'm not doing it. Steve Mnookin, I'm going to ignore that. I'm not giving y'all any of the notes tied to all Mueller's work product. Don't matter. It was just this one thing after another. And he's operated from this notion that I can literally do whatever I

want because everybody else in the country is subject to the law except the president. And the thing is this, right? What he's come up against at this point in time is that he's come up against the one thing that is not partisan, intelligence community. What happened around this whole situation? He fired Dan Coats.

He fired John Bolton. People in this town may not like John Bolton, but they'll respect him as an intelligence officer. People in this town actually like and respect Dan Colts. So, you know, when all this went down, you know, he got rid of Colts, he got rid of Colts' deputy, and then brought in an acting DNI who would come in and do his dirty work. He fired the ambassador to Ukraine, too. He fired the ambassador to the Ukraine.

So, you know, the one thing, the one thing, the one thing, the one thing that has always, that has always stumbled Trump, not blocked him, but stumbled him, is process of D.C., is the actual bureaucracy of D.C., is the clapback of the intelligence community. And the Constitution. And the Constitution. And to go to what Scott was saying earlier, actually, the House currently has 218 votes for impeachment because the independent rep, Justin Amash, is in favor. There are 217.

The Dem caucus is 217, But here's the thing, Chris. Nobody's counting the mosh. Here's the thing, Chris. Of course, there are Republicans who yell. Of course, Sean Hannity, all those idiots over there keep yelling, deep state, deep state, especially a deep delusion of Lou Dobbs. But it's not even just a question of

where the intelligence community is. This guy ignores the Constitution. I know he hasn't read it. So let's not even be confused by that. And Democrats had no choice to go this way because if they allowed Donald Trump to ignore subpoenas, to exert executive privilege, people who didn't even work at the White House like Corey Lewandowski,

to do whatever he wanted, they literally were setting up a system where the next president could say, damn, y'all, I can ignore you too. At some point, you actually have to defend the Constitution in this democracy if you actually believe in it. Yeah.

Yeah, but so, yeah, okay, but there are a couple things here. Number one, I think from the Democratic standpoint, however, there is a challenge, and that challenge is, and as Republicans, we're very good at that, which is keeping on message and sticking to talking points. Look, you cannot have an impeachment, you cannot have impeachment charges that are 27 pages long. The point here, and let's be realistic about this, there are still a number of Democrats who were elected in Trump- leading districts who are concerned about what the message is relative to

impeachment. Is it all of the above? Is it, you know, and that's the thing. The issue with Nixon, and I think we oftentimes, you know, really just ignore this lesson. The issue with Nixon was that there was a groundswell. Thus far, Democrats have not put forth in any particular and coherent way that groundswell. I got you on that. I understand that, Chris. But, Ravi, here's the reality, that people also, and Chris, you gotta stop overlooking this. At the outset, first of all, let's remember, Nixon was re-elected in

1972. Agreed. Nixon was re-elected after Watergate. His approval rating, and it was a slaughter, his approval ratings were around 65%, Ravi, at the outset of the impeachment inquiry. When it got to the end, it was in the low 30s. And so the reality is once you begin to have

these hearings and once you begin to hear these witnesses and once you begin to hear people answer these questions, and if a Corin Lewandowski, if a Rudy Giuliani, if a Mike Pompeo goes before the American people and says, I plead the fifth, I plead the fifth, I plead the fifth, I plead the fifth, there is a natural reaction from the public and that Robbie I think is the difference when it comes to why you hold these hearings because you don't start with 65% supporting impeachment because nobody wants to Pete nobody wants to go through an impeachment process there is a reason it has only happened a few times in American history meaning you have done something that rises to a level that's not even political, that is just so far beyond the pale that we have to go to impeachment. And I think that's the difference. Robbie, what's your comment? I would remind us that what's unique about this impeachment episode is that Pelosi has allowed six different committees to actually investigate

various aspects of this impeachment episode in this case of their ability against the president. Usually it's just the Judiciary Committee, and that is, of course, chaired by Nadler. But what is interesting, and I'll give one shout out to our HU Poly Sci grad brother, Representative Elijah Cummings, who is, of course, chair of the Oversight Committee, which has the broadest, really, mandate to investigate anything that looks untoward as it relates to being a public official and all the business that goes on in the House. And so what is unique about this is that this has been a very methodical process that Pelosi has governed thus far. And as some of your guests said earlier, absolutely. This is the beginning. And the impeachment in the Constitution was meant to not only, yes, indict perhaps in a public official at a high level. We have, by the way, impeached, for example,

federal judges before. And so the same clause works for those individuals as well. But the impeachment also serves as a opportunity for the nation to heal from a very difficult, traumatic episode, which is in fact, the constitutional crisis. And that is something that we should look forward to as it relates to this impeachment over the next 100 to 200 days or so.

All right, folks, hold tight one second. Of course, this is going to be going on for a while, so we got lots more time to discuss that. Dr. Chris Metzler, Dr. Robbie Perry, we certainly appreciate it. Thank you so very much. Okay. Thank you. All right, folks, going to go to a break right now. When we come back, update on the Amber Geiger, both of them, John trial taking place. The former Dallas cop who shot and killed, of course, both of them, John, in his own apartment. Defense claiming self-defense.

Really? And why did a black Texas Ranger investigator actually say today that both of them, John, represented a direct threat to Geiger in his apartment? What the... Okay. This is Roland Martin Unfiltered. Back in a moment. for 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 for slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it.

Quiet. All right, folks, you heard me talk a lot'll know it. Quiet. Now, 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 legal in the U.S., but it was, of course, made legal by the 2018 Farm Bill. Now, the folks at 420 Real Estate are giving our folks a great opportunity. Of course, their business model is simple. They buy land that supports hemp CBD grow operations and lease it to licensed, high-paying tenants. That's right, they are hemp CBD landlords. And so what they have done for our Roland Martin unfiltered families is allow you to make a minimum investment of $200.

Originally the minimum was $200. Originally, the minimum was $500, but now you can invest in this crowdfunding campaign for as little as $200, up to $10,000. All you got to do is go to marijuana stock.org. That's marijuana stock.org to get in the game and to get in the game now. Folks, my next guest believes elected leaders need to be held to a higher standard before taking office and that the requirement for elected office needs to be more structured and intentional. Plus, they must have a minimum level of education or training. Well, Mayor of Moss Point, Mississippi, joins me right now to discuss that and this, let's just say this drama he's having with his own alderman there. Mayor Murdo King, how you doing? I'm doing great. How are you guys? All right, so what's the drama

in there, Mississippi? I think this is just an issue across the country where we have elected officials that take office and really just not aware of the roles and responsibilities that we actually have when we take office. You see it happening now on the national level. It's happening on the state level, and it's definitely happening on the local level. The problem that I see with it is that local politics,

the policies and ordinances and laws that we create are immediately impacting our communities, and it's creating a chaos. You know, we are asking people who've never ran a budget to run a budget. We're asking people to create laws and policies that govern communities and quality of life to actually write these things. Then these are people that, some of these people can't even read and write. And so what I've created was a task force to say we need to have legislative literacy

across the country to kind of hold elected officials accountable. All you have to do in order to be... So basically training. Training. And the bill that I wrote

in Mississippi actually died in committee this year, last year. Well, wouldn't you need a constitutional change to do that? Right right now whatever the electoral requirements are to be a council member a mayor a governor at the state level be a registered voter okay and if the but if the drafters of the constant

state constitution for example for Mississippi wanted there to be more requirements an education level or training then wouldn't you need a constitutional change in order to implement that? Absolutely. So what you see, what I drafted was Senate Bill 2417. I've been looking at it. Which is a bill that actually does that. And so we understand the program.

And again- To change the Constitution. To change the Constitution. Actually, isn't a change would be to implement a new policy, a new state law that actually helps to govern these types of things. We're failing our people. And if I have to create a grassroots movement, which is what I do to actually impact something,

to hold us accountable, it would be helpful. Because you can't hold these elected leaders accountable for things if they don't know. And you're not giving them the twos in the toolbox or even requiring them to have it. So it's unfortunate that what we are and kind of how we're governing our organization. Well, how much money would you have to put in the budget to do this type of training if the Senate bill passes? So if you put this, a lot of people talk about funded versus unfunded mandates. This should be a requirement

before you're elected into office. They already have structures in place. So I think this would actually help fund our public schools, our public universities, because Stennis Institute is for Mississippi. You have University of Georgia that does it for Georgia. So there's already a structure in place to do this. Only thing those structures have to do is tailor a curriculum for municipal...

Yeah, but I've read your bill, and I'm not sure your bill... It's real simple. If you're the mayor, why can't you simply... If a new council is elected, you simply have council training? You can try to do that, but my council voted against it, and councils across the country vote against it. It's just not. So y'all don't have retreats? No.

As the mayor, you can't call a retreat? You can't call those retreats. You can or cannot? You cannot. Executive versus legislative. Legislative branch of government is responsible for spending money. It's their responsibility. So you have a city council that when you want to retreat, they say no.

You want training, they say no. Yes. And essentially, that's not the mayor's job. That's not the city manager's job. You know, when you hire and in the form of government that I have, I actually run the city. So I don't have the city manager. I don't have a CAO. So I actually run the city. You've got a strong form of mayoral government. So it's still

a weak mayor form of government, but I run the day-to-day operations. Got it. The legislative branch actually spends money and does the hiring and firing. So what happened is the problem. What kind of requirements do you want them to have before they can take office? I would like for organizations and colleges and universities to be able to... The Mississippi Municipal League is what governs ours. Every state has a league. So what I would like for leagues to do is to structure a curriculum that is mandated for elected officials to go through before they take office.

And what I was willing to do just to help the bill was to say, look, let's do it after they take office and give them a certain amount of time. And if they don't do that requirement, then what happens is, okay, now the city is not responsible for paying for training. The city can't use city resources to do that if you don't invest in getting the training. One second. Final question, Eugene. Wouldn't it just make more sense just to replace them in the next election? But you still have the same type of people that would be elected.

I mean, you can handpick your folk that you're slating with. I disagree. Bring your own slate. You can try to bring your slate, but then you risk the chance of electing them, which is still, to me, an absence of actually educating the people. But the people with the least amount of money and the least amount of education are of color and the whole point of an elective form of government is that even if Eugene is, you know, thick as three bricks, if I want Eugene to be my council elected president, and there's nothing to say that he can't do a good job of it because he has socioeconomic issues or because he's a victim of discrimination like many other

black men in America. One second, one second, answer it. One second, answer Money's question. What if he can't read? What if he can't write? Well, actually, actually, actually, actually had the issue in Detroit where you had... We had that issue with the president of the United States.

No, no, no. I mean, so you had that. Okay, so, well, look, we'll certainly see what happens with that and whether or not it passes. I do think we need to have people who know what the hell they're doing. But, again, the problem is you have people writing our survey who ain't never read the Constitution. And they actually—

This isn't just a law issue. It's a state and national issue. Okay. 100. Mayor King, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks a bunch. We're going to have folks go into a break.

We'll come back. We'll talk about the Amber Geiger trial that had taken place in Dallas. Thanks a bunch. All right, folks, going to a break. We come back. We'll talk about the Amber Guyger trial that had taken place in Dallas. Thanks a bunch. Back to Roland Martin Unfiltered. 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. All right, folks.

November 7th through the 11th, of course, Life, Luck, Jazz Experience taking place in Cabo. It's going to be fantastic. Gerald Orbe right there, my alpha brother. It's going to be one. Gerald Orbe right there, my alpha brother. It's going to be one of the folks performing there. Top-notch music, food, golf, spa, all that good stuff taking place at the Omnia Day Club in Los Cabos, nestled on the Sea of Cortez in the Celebrity Playground of Los Cabos. Life Luxe Jazz Experience offers the ultimate getaway for discerning jazz aficionados.

It's going to be a fantastic time. I'll be broadcasting Roller Martin Unfiltered there Thursday and Friday from Los Cabos. Great excursions, many concerts, including the Spirit of Jazz Gospel Brunch, as well as the Jazz Sunset Cruise. Confirmed guests, comedian and actor Mark Curry with Joe Albright, Alex Boon Young,

Raul Madon, Incognito, Pieces of a Dream, Kirk Whalum, Average White Band, Donnie McClurkin, Shalaya, Roy Ayers, Tom Brown, Ronnie Laws, and Ernest Quarles. For more information, please visit www.lifeluxjazz.com, L-I-F-E-L-U-X-E-J-A-Z-Z.com. You want to book your package real soon to get those airline tickets as well. And so while folks are freezing in the Northeast and Midwest all across the country, we'll be having some fun, some sun-drenched fun there in Cabo. All right, folks, let's talk about the day three of the Amber Geiger trial in Dallas. She's a former Dallas cop on trial for murdering Botham Jean.

Now, today was quite interesting because a Texas Ranger testified, this brother right here, Robert Armstrong, actually testified that, pull it up, please, testified that Amber Geiger, he actually said that Botham Jean represented a significant threat to the life of Amber

Geiger. Botham Jean was in his own apartment. What we also know from testimony today is that Amber Geiger had a very emotional phone call with a fellow police officer who she was having an affair with moments before walking into the apartment. Now, the same black Texas Ranger investigator said that the couch matched the couch in both of John's apartment matched the one in Amber Gaga's apartment,

all kinds of other stuff. The judge was like, yo ass ain't testifying in front of the jury. So it didn't happen. What's interesting about this, Monique, is that you see the defense making this whole point that it was self-defense. She had no choice. She clearly believed that it was her apartment.

Others are saying, wait a minute, to prove murder, she had to have intent. Your thoughts again on how this trial is proceeding? I think it's the wrong defense. I mean, to me, of all of the ways that they could have gone with this, to

go out on a limb for self-defense where they actually shift the burden and have to prove things. But now she got one second. Who wants that? Makes no sense because I believe that what is more than likely true should be the best defense here. It's more likely that she made a mistake and parked on that level and walked in that same floor and walked into that

apartment and in all of her days, tired, just got off of the phone, which is now in evidence, she reacted a way she shouldn't have and mistakenly shot a man in what she thought was her apartment. She's still wrong. It's still manslaughter. But it would not be the intent for murder. And they're not accepting that that's the best that they can do for her as defense attorneys. So they're trying to go for this grand slam. And I think they can end up pissing off this jury. That evidence about her being on the call makes sense. Apartment buildings that look alike, it can all happen.

They haven't given us the facts yet. I'll wait to see what prosecutors come up with. For any reason, she was out to get him. For any reason, she was upset about him or every black. That's what I'm saying. Let's say everything you're right. We don't have a reason. She made a mistake.

Why is she shooting? And that's what I'm saying. She shouldn't have, and that's manslaughter. That's an improper reaction, which we see from police officers all the time, especially off-duty, when all they have is their gun. I mean, I've tried that case 12 times in this very District of Columbia. But the case also— And getting those off-duty cops in those situations where they think there's an issue

and they go for the one weapon they have is how people end up dead and that is what happened here i haven't heard anything about why she really wanted him dead but why don't you think what she did is overreact and a man ended up dead and that's manslaughter okay i agree yeah let me get my point out the reality is what's wrong with the argument that the prosecution overcharged this case and she should really should have been charged with manslaughter. Which, which by the way, the Texas, the Texas Rangers charged her with manslaughter. It went to the grand jury. The grand jury came back with a murder charge. The Dallas district

district attorney's office did not pursue the manslaughter charge. Didn't bring it up. In fact, Robert Armstrong, of course, the Texas range investigator, again, this took place outside of the jury's presence. He said today that he felt that she did not intend to kill him. He said that it was a mistake, and he said she should have been indicted on manslaughter.

They decided there, the jury should make the decision, not listen to him. Yeah, and here's the thing. Yeah, because now they charged. But when the DA went on TV and we saw that black mama judge do what was priceless, there were all the conspiracy theorists saying, mm-hmm, she's trying to throw the trial because in Dallas that's what people are saying. Either she overcharged it because she didn't care about coming back with a guilty or

they succumbed to pressure and she improperly charged. Yeah, but either way, she made a case harder for her people. Yeah, probably overcharged. Hold on. Here's what you had. You had Faith Jenkins, who was the district attorney in, excuse me, excuse me.

I'm a lawyer in this cell. I got this. Okay, stop talking. He talking. Faith Jenkins was the district attorney in Dallas, Republican. When all of this went down, the grand jury indicted. She lost her re-election to John Cruzzo, Democrat Democrat who's now a district attorney. So the interview Monique is talking about was John Cruz giving the interview the day before the trial when the judge

said, there's a gag order. Why the hell is anybody talking? And so, and she's absolutely right. People in Dallas were demanding murder charges. I was down there for a town hall at a church there and folks they wanted nothing less than murder and there were people who were trying to explain to the audience understand in these cases I know you want murder but you have to understand the difference between murder second-degree murder manslaughter veh vehicular. I mean, there are multiple categories when somebody dies.

And their deal is the guy charged with the right one. And let's remember, when you had the cop in Chicago who shot and killed Rekia Boyd, they went to court. Dante, I forgot the last one. It was Dante. They go to court. The judge said they improperly charged one, it was Dante. They go to court, the judge said they improperly charged him, and he walked. Yeah. Yeah, but here.

One second. So I'm not a lawyer, but I'm playing with them, I'm on this panel with these lawyers. So the thing is this, right, I actually think that there is an outside chance they can come back with a conviction on the murder charge. Looking at the testimony from the neighbor today, there was some discussion between both of them and Amber Geiger. The neighbor testified. He heard back and forth. He said what he did not hear was her saying

get on the floor. He did not hear any police commands. He heard a back and forth and then he hears gunshots. And he also testified that he previously, because they were right next to each other, he often heard him singing gospel music in the morning. So he was laying out, I've heard this guy talk before. Go ahead.

And then on top of that, you know, both of them was probably going to be determined that he had to open the door. You know, her bob, her key didn't work. And so between, you know, between her not being able to get into the apartment, him letting her in, and then she not giving any type of command to, one, de-escalate the situation, probably take control of the situation, you know, she just fires off her weapon after some level of discussion.

I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to play along on this show. I think that shows some level of intent there. But, Kim, what you're saying? First of all, you don't have to be a lawyer, because I'm going to play more on the show. I think that shows some level of intent there. First of all, you don't have to be a lawyer because the reality is if you're sitting on a doggone jury, I mean, you're going to be making a decision. So, I mean, the jurors are not lawyers. But they are listening.

And, again, this trial, folks, of course, cameras are in the courtroom. It's being live streamed every single day. So people are actually watching this trial. Listen to the testimony. Final comment, Scott. There's a real question as to whether the murder charge, let alone one form of the manslaughter charge, even gets to the jury. Because when the prosecution rests,

you can bet the defense is going to do a motion to dismiss, saying that they haven't proven their case for murder, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, or that no jury could find murder based on the evidence that was put in. Look for the judge as to whether she's got the courage to let the murder charge go or keep it all in and just punt it to the jury.

That'll be important to watch. All right, folks, let's go to this story out of Georgia. The family of Shalai Tilson, a former inmate in the Rockdale County Jail in Atlanta, said he tried to get help before dying naked on the floor of his cell. Folks, this is the video that was released last week. Oh, my goodness.

And so what you see here is you see Tilson buzzing for help. Help does not come. Certainly in the family of Tilson says this is shameful here. The actions that took place in that jail. Joining us right now is Tilson's mother, Tanisha Tilson, and her attorney, Mawuli Davis. First and foremost, Ms. Tilson, we certainly sorry for your loss. Are you alleging in this case negligence by the jailers there? That's what caused the death of your son? Absolutely. And it's it's beyond negligence.

It's actually torture, intentional and something that should have never, ever happened. He was in that condition in that particular cell for seven days. He was in a cell for seven days, solitary for seven days by himself? Correct. Seven days without a toilet, without a bed, without a water source. And we know for the last three days, based on the internal affairs report, he was there naked and really dying, essentially. And are there any reports

on how often they checked on him? Was he denied food? Was he denied water? You know, what are you laying out led to this, to him passing away? He died. The medical examiner found that he died of dehydration, which is unheard of in the United States. He was having a mental health crisis. and rather than send him for medical treatment, they locked him up in solitary confinement. What we can see is that there are food trays, styrofoam trays, all kinds of garbage in the cell in which he passed away. But what we don't know is whether or not they ever

actually passed him water or anything of that nature he was having a mental health crisis he should not have been in jail he should have been in the hospital has any miss Tilson any actions taken against any of the jailers is there actually an official investigation what's the status? Shali's case was just in the special grand jury. And we were waiting. We're waiting for the verdict to the special grand jury. So the special grand jury is determining whether or not any sort of indictment will be handed down against those jailers. Yes.

Or any recommendation for a criminal prosecution. And so we are obviously very, very concerned that not one of the jailers were ever terminated for supposedly it was supposed to be every 15 minutes, a suicide check on him. We know through the Internal Affairs Report that they falsified the law. One of the deputies falsified the law because Mr. Tilson stopped moving and for at least two hours he was not moving when they finally came in

found him um they didn't even transport him um or to perform any life-saving measures because he was cold and rigor mortis rigor mortis was beginning to set in uh that is certainly uh i mean it's sad to hear uh we will await that special grand jury. We certainly thank both of you for joining us and certainly keep us surprised of what happens in this case. Thank you. Again, Mrs. Tilson, take care as well as Attorney Davis. Thanks a lot. Thank you. All right, folks, let's talk about this story out of Seattle. A federal agent, Bradford Devlin, has worn a Nazi-themed tattoo which shows a German Eagle SS lightning bolt since the early 2000s

when he says he got it while working undercover with the Order of Blood, an outlaw white supremacist biker gang in Ohio. He's now a senior supervisor in the Seattle Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Devlin says there are a number of other former undercover ATF agents with similar Nazi tattoos calling them war trophies from their undercover days. Well, that tattoo, along with a series of emails sent from Devlin's ATF account mocking black people and then-President Barack Obama,

are at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed by Cheryl Bishop, an African-American ATS supervisor and former bomb dog handler. She says she was a target of retaliation when she complained about abuse by Devlin, who says he won't remove his tattoos until other agents remove theirs. Really?

Wow. Is this crazy-ass white people a section? No, we're not there yet. Sure, we can go ahead and make it that. Listen, if you keep the tattoo as a war emblem, then you pretty much believe in it because it represents who you are and you're showing it off to people.

That's going to be a great piece of evidence for her in her federal lawsuit, along with the emails and everything else that's coming her way. She also claimed that she was promised a major assignment in Washington, D.C., had gotten approval to do it, and all of a sudden, Devlin said, no, you can't do it. You can't go. She said that actually has hurt her career as well. But he could say he got this while working undercover, doing some honorable job, but as long as he could he could say he got this while working on the cover doing some honorable job But as long as he has that tattoo he's endorsing what he learned undercover and it is represents who he is

That's gonna be hard to overcome in federal court money No, I don't think people can make you remove your tattoo. I don't think they can but he's still don't think that it can't be a Requirement if it's in a place that does not show. What about the racist emails along with that emblem? That's why I'm talking about the tattoo, and that's why I believe maybe because of that, he should be, the emails and things, he should be fired, but the forcing of something adding to your body

or taking from your body, I think just as a strict matter of law, But it's the antithesis of the American values, and he's a member of a federal police force, and he is promoting Nazism. He is. But what he's saying is, if it's true, that he got it while undercover doing his job, so then I don't know that you can require

just as a matter of law for it to be removed. You know, in this case, the ATF agreed to pay for its removal, and he still refused. And I understand that it's a significant amount of pain and trauma. No one on the police force should have a racist symbol, either on their clothing or their body. I'm sorry. They're there to protect and serve. Eugene, what you have here, again, you have this sister in filing this lawsuit saying that she was denied. And again, having these emails showing

him mocking black people and then president obama kind of helps i think you know yeah i'm probably going to um probably lean to morris monique's argument here you know i think you know probably forcing somebody to remember something you backing her put push something or take something off of a body is a stretch but when you have the hard evidence of other email trail, that's more than enough to fire somebody It's more than enough to you know, sue an agency And it's hate speech hate, but you know, but but I do think that you know You do have certain rights within this country that protect you don't have a right to be a part of ATF and have that On your shoulder you don't and I can go do something else the way the laws are

written right now the way the laws are written right now is that you have to probably go out you tolerate it as a Republican right on the tolerated as I don't tolerate it as other public you endorse I don't know you just tolerate it as a you know better than that no I don't have any tattoos. We don't know that. You could have one right here. I tell you I don't. But we don't know that. I'm sorry.

I got two brands. That ain't hate speech. You've known me for a very long time. To some it is. Hold on a second here. You know me for a very long time now. You know I got no talent for no hate speech. I agree.

It was a question. I know. Because if you allow an ATF officer to promote that, to have that. Yeah, I got no tolerance for no hate speech. I agree. It was a question. I know. Because if you allow an ATF officer to promote that, to have that, and won't do it, right, then you're tacitly, not tacitly, you're endorsing the fact that he's got a right to wear it and promote hate speech as a federal police officer. He's not wearing something. He is wearing it. He just saw a picture where he pulled it up the show.

He spit in my eye. Sorry. Can we have the next topic? No. Well, it's the show. You spit in my eye. Sorry. Can we have the next topic? No. Well, it's his show. But he said we have 30 seconds. But my point is, there's got to be a way to resolve that. I've been assaulted personally now.

Oh, my goodness gracious. I'm going to let y'all handle that. Next thing, it's going to be me too. Don't weaponize it. Don't weaponize it. Y'all done. Y'all done. All right, gotcha.

William Lee, the publisher of the Sacramento Observer, folks, has passed away. The newspaper he founded more than 50 years ago was Sacramento's source for African American news. Lee died over the weekend at the age of 83. A pillar of his community, he documented the lives of African Americans before they were elected officials, judges, doctors, and lawyers. He will be a tremendous loss to his family and community. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with them. All right, folks, a quite disturbing story out of North Carolina,

where an African-American woman who actually works for the NAACP, she says she was sexually harassed by an individual who worked for the NAACP. But to make it worse, this person now is running for the state conference presidency of the NAACP. These allegations, folks, go back now two years. They go back two years. They have been speaking to this very issue. I'm trying to pull up, there was a news conference today that took place in California, excuse me, it took place in North

Carolina, where they detail this sexual harassment. Reverend William Barber, the former chair, former head of the North Carolina State Conference, the NAACP, was at that news conference as well. I'm going to start with you, Monique. What's interesting here is that this has been going on for two years. The national office can actually remove someone from their position with these allegations. They hired a law firm to investigate, went through the investigation, detail these comments, detail these actions, present that report to the state conference. And these were individuals who actually were NAACP National Lawyers of the Year. But the fact of the matter is,

NAACP still has not acted. And so these women are saying, so these elders today stood up in a news conference, North Carolina, these women, and said, we're standing with this woman, and it's time for the NAACP to act against, to remove this guy from consideration running for state conference president. Just your thoughts on this. I'm trying to pull up this news conference. Yeah, I've been wondering. I believe it seems to me like there's something just missing from the story because they followed process. They did what they were supposed to do.

They did way more than was done for Franken when allegations came out. I mean, he was forced to resign without the semblance of process due or otherwise. And so they get this report and then no action is taken. And I mean, that's within their rights to do. But we don't, we don't, yeah, we don't know whether, because sometimes, no, they're not going to get me today talking about complainants.

Just, we don't have the facts. Well, the conclusion may have been inconsistent, for example. Right. Or they may have had a finding, an inconclusive finding, and that's why they haven't acted. But I do say this. The senior leadership of the NAACP

in North Carolina ought to say something. No, no, no. The senior, but they have. And that's the point there. What they've done is Reverend Barber, when it actually happened, they went through the process. They actually hired outside. But what's in the process. They actually hired an outside partner. But what's in the report?

They actually had an investigation that detailed and confirmed what actually took place. And other women have actually come forward as well. And what they're saying is in the national office, they have the authority. The president and CEO literally has the authority to remove somebody and they're saying is it is ridiculous This person is actually running to be president of the state conference. Why and why haven't they done it? Well, don't know don't know I actually sent a text message before we came on the show today To their national spokesman as well as the president CEO, saying, we're discussing this on the show today. I would like to get a statement from them. They said they were going to send a statement and then let me check. I have not gotten it thus far. I sent that text message at 524.

It's now 705. So I have not gotten it. And so, and these are apparently these women plan on being in Baltimore tomorrow at the NAACP's national headquarters to bring more attention to this case. Sounds like NAACP needs a crisis manager. Right. But they need to act or communicate or something. The silence is deafening on this. What's the deal? You don't want to remove him,

so you're not going to remove him. And if you aren't going to remove him, okay, but say something. You've got five, ten people here standing. They're going to be at the headquarters tomorrow. Why are you allowing this to fester? Just say something or do something. And I understand, folks, and so I'm just going to. And so, again, they had a news conference today where they were quite open. Many of these, and they labeled it,

elder women stand with the views on sexual assault. These are women who are very prominent in the NAACP. Go to my iPad, please, and then here's some of those comments. Good morning, everyone. My name is Jasmine Childs, and I am 27 years old. In January of 2017, I was incredibly excited to have been offered a job with the North Carolina NAACP as the state youth and college director. My work was not just

work. It was my dream job, an opportunity to inspire young people and play a role in their voting and making our democracy work. I long admired the North Carolina NAACP and the National NAACP and its women fighters. I wanted to be just like them. Shortly after I begun my dream work, a long nightmare began. On February 8, 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 The staff... The staff were in the office setting up for my co-worker, Laurel 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 a receipt and then he stormed out. I stood there feeling violated, ashamed, and scared after he sexually assaulted me. Concerned about my safety and that he would get more aggressive, I reported the incident and filed a sexual harassment complaint. Once Reverend Barber learned about it, he ordered an independent investigation with a lawyer, independent lawyer, to conduct, which took about five months.

The supervisor found out about my complaint and tried to intimidate me by barging into my office. I had to shut the door to keep him out. And I felt like a hostage. He resigned during the investigation, but he repeatedly showed up at NAACP events and would stare me down. And this too made me feel violated. At the conclusion of the five-month investigation,

the attorney slash law professor gave her determination in a report. She concluded that I had indeed been sexually harassed those two times and several others. Reverend Barber sent the report to the National NAACP with a request that he be expelled as a member, which only the national body can do. However, nationals advised the North Carolina NAACP to file a cease and desist order, banning him from coming to any more NAACP events. And they did. But he defied the order and appeared anyway to stare me down. I left the NAACP and I became aware that he was running for the state's NAACP president. So I wrote an open letter

to National President Derek Johnson, asking that he use his power to stop it because he would endanger many women. He failed to respond to me. Instead, I was told to file an Article 10, the process used to have a branch member removed. I did that and got a requisite 42 signatures from members across the state of North Carolina. I have yet to hear from nationals. A different article 10 was filed for expulsion of the same man who sexually harassed me for his protests in front of the Alamance County

commissioners meeting and with television evidence the national NAACP dismissed it. Moreover not only does the perpetrator still have a close relationship with the executive committee members of the executive committee the North Carolina NAACP but as I said he is now running for the president of the North Carolina NAACP as president the predator will have access to many women locally and nationally standing here today is the last thing I wanted to do, but I have come forward for two reasons. First, to name the perpetrator who violated me. His name was Reverend Curtis Everett Gatewood. I'm also coming forward to demand that the National NAACP stop violating me and its women members and expel Reverend Gatewood and establish a sexual harassment policy.

I want to be included in the process of developing this policy. These past two and a half years have been very traumatic for me. This has been the most difficult thing I've ever had to deal with. First, I was violated by Reverend Curtis Gatewood and then violated by the National NAACP. I had to get professional counseling. I've wept many times, and it continues to haunt and hurt me. Seeing him flaunt himself on Facebook as a champion of young people and him running for president traumatizes me further. Moreover, people in the North Carolina NAACP have cascaded the elder women

who support me without knowing all of the information. The challenge of fighting institutionalized sexual harassment is that it requires much from the victim. This is especially true when institutions like the NAACP do not have a clear process or policy for addressing sexual harassment and instead violate victims and cause them more trauma by sending them through a complicated bureaucratic maze. It's sexist. They cannot and continue and open without sanction. Gatewood for proven sexual harassment and sexual assault to the many other victims of Reverend Curtis Gatewood and his sexual violence who are scared to come forward. I stand for you today and I'm sorry for all of the pain that he has caused you. I will not stop. We must protect other women Jasmine is a leader.

Yes. Yes. And Jasmine is a champion among women. Her mother is here. I want to make sure the media knows this is her mother. To stand with her today. And her brother is here. And when she asked me to come and stand with her today, Jasmine,

there was no hesitation or question. I was in El Paso organizing the campaign, Poor People's Campaign, when the elder sisters decided it was time for them to make a stand. They have not been hasty. They have tried. They have written. They've sent open letters internally. And they have found nothing but

resistance. It is important to know, you to know, that this group of elder women include bishops, presidents of branches, long-term fighters for justice, people who have stood up to the literal gun violence of the Ku Klux Klan. Yes. And they met with this sister and her family and said, this is one battle we cannot let pass. Yes.

Yes. No more. We are here because this young lady and leader decided that she wouldn't be silent anymore and watch an organization not deal with her legitimate legal call for action. We are here because Jasmine's truth about sexual harassment is not hearsay, hyperbole, or a fixation of her imagination. It is true. We are here because there is clear evidence of what occurred and other things backed by witnesses, recordings, social media, and a five-month investigation by a top lawyer

and professor of law who specializes in sexual harassment and abuse cases. We are here because we have clear evidence that individuals who should be standing with this young lady connected to this North Carolina State Executive Committee have decided to stand instead with the perpetrator. And at appropriate time, we may name them as well. We are here because she has been maligned and these elder women of highest regard who have given their lives and soul to the cause of justice and love and chose to stand with her, they've been maligned too.

And any others that may come forward, they've been ignored. And these women and this lady and this mother has been accused of petty politics. We're here because we and the current state president, Dr. Reverend T. Anthony Spearman, and two top lawyers for our state provided counsel along with myself and informed the National two years ago. Let me say that. Two lawyers, myself and the current state president,

informed the National two years ago and have continued to push the case. National affirmed receipt in numerous ways, but has chosen not to act in ways that only the national can by virtue of its Constitution. No state president or state officer or anyone can remove or expel or suspend a member. Shame. We have reviewed the bylaws and Constitution, and there is no clear guidance on dealing with sexual harassment. So the only way it can be dealt with at this current stage is for the national office to act

and power that is rendered only to the national office. We are here finally because there are messages sent to at least one person who gave witness testimony in front of Jasmine. And this message should concern us all. Yes, it does. This was sent by the perpetrator to one of the persons who gave testimony. But if she does this to the wrong person, it could end violently. Some of the past mass shootings were driven by people

who say they were mistreated by others within their places of work or worship. What more mistreatment can one commit toward another sister or brother than to lie about something that could carelessly stain a person's years of honest hard work and his her livelihood which punishes and causes stress for his entire family but if she does this to the wrong person it could end violently some of the past mass shootings were driven by people who said, this is language that was utilized by Gatewood and sent to a person who provided witness testimony. I'm a member of the National Board.

I've given my heart and soul to this organization, and I am ashamed. I'm hurt, and I'm upset along with these women. We are all upset. It is time for you to act, and it is time for those of you in this state who we have seen on email and other places to stop making this a petty issue

and maligning Jasmine and her family and these women and stand up for what is right. We will not back down. I have been advised by a council as well to be very limited.

And I will take two questions. Jasmine will not take any. Yes, sir. Reverend Robert, you've been a part of the NAACP for years. There's been a history of allegations of sexual harassment. Well, that's what I'm concerned about. And I'm concerned about I haven't been a part of the national structure for years.

We have one in the state. We made sure it was there. But I'm also concerned about, I don't want people to skirt around, well, we didn't have a policy. In the current rendition of the Constitution, the national president can remove anybody on the spot. Yes.

On the spot, right? The boykin Act. I've seen them act in certain ways. We signed and signed off on the Me Too resolution. We did a Me Too resolution. This is not about, as much as there ought to be a clearer policy, this is not about the lack of policies, it's about the lack of principle to act right now. Yes, yes.

Hear, hear. The moral thing to do. The moral thing to do, the right thing to do. There comes a time that you do what is right. That's the whole fight of this organization. We were told, oh, we can't end segregation. We don't have a law, a policy. This organization said, though, that segregation violated higher law. And whatever policies kept it in place were immoral. And if you do that in the social structure as it regards to racism,

you surely have to do that in as it regards sexual harassment and sexual violence. One more question. And isn't that the irony? It is. And the organization that's dedicated to ending discrimination is discriminating based on gender. Yeah. This hurts me deeply, and all of us. But we're gonna model what to do.

Yeah, we're gonna show folk what to do, and we're not giving up. This organization, you know in this state, we fought, we went to jail, we beat back racism and voter suppression. We're fighting for health care for everybody. We claim in this organization we want young people in, and here is a young person who came to give their early life.

This girl could go anywhere she wants to. Anywhere. She's educated and trained. She came in this organization. And when she let us know what was going on, we immediately did an objective investigation, immediately. A female top lawyer who specialized in these issues, she did a deep dive. By the time it was over, I was transitioning out,

but I stood with the incoming president to say to National, this is for real. And it makes no sense. And if they try to blame the women or blame me or say we didn't follow this or that, that doesn't hold any water. Because if this organization had said that down through the years, we would have never made any progress in this country. Because everything we fought was policy, was legal.

But it violated our deeper moral values, our deepest religious values, and our deepest constitutional value. I'm sure that this mother didn't wake up this morning or last week or month before that she wanted to be standing up here with her daughter but she came today because she has seen and heard people maligning this child and these and excuse me for saying child but I got daughters her age this young lady and these women, you know, it's time for it to cease. And members of the North Carolina NAACP, it's time for it to cease.

This sister, this young lady is telling the truth. And those of you that malign her and line up with the perpetrator are further harassing her and causing violence towards her. No more. No more. No more. Can I just ask what your relationship is like now with Reverend Gatewood?

Because in my eyes, since I've been in this market, he's been your right-hand man. No, that's not exactly true. He worked for the NAACP. All of the staff worked. But he's not a right-hand. I don't know where that came from. Well, a lot of people, this is my right hand.

There were thousands of people that got arrested. He was a part of the team. You don't know what people are doing until you see. This is not about personal friendship. That's the very thing. Whether or not I'm a personal friend or a staff worker or a member of my church, that

has nothing to do with this. This has something. He worked for a portion of time as the coordinator, the HK on J coordinator when we first started and did some work in that regard. And then he was also at one point the head of the Durham

chapter, is that correct? That's been some time. I can't remember all of that history, but yeah. What is he was also at one point the head of the Durham chapter, is that correct? That's been some time. I can't remember all of that history, but yeah. What is he now? Does he have a role now? Well, no, not that I know of. There was an incident where he wrongfully assumed the position of president of the Alabama National, removed him from that here a few months ago, and now history.

But a long history. He's been with the... He's been, yes. Yes, that's right. And when is this election? October? October 5th. Very, very soon. Yeah. October 5th. October 5th.

Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. As I said, folks, a couple of hours ago, I sent a text message to the president of the NAACP, Derrick Johnson, and their national spokesman. And they said a statement would be forthcoming. We've yet to receive that. And so certainly when we do hear from the national NAACP, we'll certainly alert all of you.

Folks, that is it for today. Don't forget, if you want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered, please do so by joining our Bring the Funk fan club by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com RolandMartinUnfiltered.com to join our fan club. Your dollars go to support this show and what we do. Tomorrow, I'm going to be broadcasting

from Lima, Ohio, folks, where, of course, I'll be speaking there for an organization there. Let me get it for you. The Lima Area Chamber Foundation tied to the Lima-Allen County Chamber of Commerce. And, of course, we'll be speaking there. If you have not gotten your tickets, do so.

And so I will see you guys there tomorrow in Ohio. Looking forward to it. Certainly got a good word for you there about black folks coming together to fight oppression and bigotry in this country. And so I shall see you then. All right, people, I got to go. Stay black. I'm apologetically. this is an iHeart podcast