#RolandMartinUnfiltered - DOJ Challenges Ariz. Voting Law, Biden speaks to Griner's Wife, Grambling Volleyball Coach Fired

Episode Date: July 7, 2022

7.6.2022 #RolandMartinUnfiltered DOJ Challenges Ariz. Voting Law, Biden speaks to Griner's Wife, Grambling Volleyball Coach Fired  The Department of Justice will challenge Arizona's new law requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship for presidential elections. I'll talk to the CEO of Mi Familia Vota, a non-profit organization on the front lines battling to keep voting rights for all. The January 6th committee and former White House counsel Pat Cipollone reaches a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee. Brittney Griner's wife speaks to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden assures the WNBA's wife that he is doing everything possible to bring Griner home. Grambling University fires their newly hired volleyball coach, who dismissed the entire team. Two Nevada police departments will shell out nearly 100 thousand dollars to a black man mistakenly arrested when the cops were looking for a white man. The first black secretary of the U.S. Army, Clifford Alexander Jr., died. And in our Tech Talk segment, a food delivery service connecting you to black-owned hidden gems. We'll talk to the owner of Urban Eatz Delivery.   Support RolandMartinUnfiltered and #BlackStarNetwork via the Cash App ☛ https://cash.app/$rmunfiltered PayPal ☛ https://www.paypal.me/rmartinunfiltered Venmo ☛https://venmo.com/rmunfiltered Zelle ☛ [e-mail] Annual or monthly recurring #BringTheFunk Fan Club membership via paypal ☛ https://rolandsmartin.com/rmu-paypal/ Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox 👉🏾 http://www.blackstarnetwork.com #RolandMartinUnfiltered and the #BlackStarNetwork are news reporting platforms covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

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

Pre-game to greater them. Let's put ourselves in the right position. Pre-game to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispretirement.org. Brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. It's Wednesday, July 6, 2022. I'm Dr. Larry J. Walker, sitting in for Roland. Here's what will be coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered, streaming live on the Black Star Network. The Department of Justice will challenge Arizona's new law requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship for presidential elections.

I'll talk to the CEO of My La Familia Vota, a nonprofit organization on the front lines battling to keep voting rights for all. Also, the January 6th committee and former White House Counsel Pat Chappone reaches a deal to be interviewed Friday before the House committee. Brittney Griner's wife speaks to President Joe Biden

and Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden assures the WNiner's wife speaks to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden assures the WNBA's wife that he's doing everything possible to bring Griner home. Granville University fires newly hired volleyball coach who dismissed the entire team. Also, two Nevada police departments will shell out nearly $100,000 to a Black man mistakenly arrested when the cops were looking for a white man. The first Black secretary of the US Army, Clifford Alexander Jr., died.

And in our Tech Talk segment, a food delivery service connecting you to Black-owned hidden gems, we'll talk to the owner of Urban Eats Delivery. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin on Fielding Streaming Live on Black Star Network. Let's go. He's got it. Whatever the biz, 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 Roland. Best belief he's right on time and it's rolling best believe he's knowing putting it down from sports to news to politics with entertainment just for kicks he's rolling it's on go roll roll y'all it's rolling martin yeah rolling with rolling now It's Rollin' Martin, yeah. Rollin' with Rollin' now.

He's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best. You know he's Rollin' Martin now. The Department of Justice calls Arizona's new law requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship for presidential elections, a textbook violation. The DOJ will be challenging the Arizona measure, HB 2492, signed into law by Republican Governor John Ducey back in March. Hector Sanchez Barba is the CEO of Malafilme Vota, is joining me from here in Washington, D.C. Thank you for the invitation, Dr. Walker. Thank you for having me. Thank you for joining us today. So talk a little bit about exactly how you're feeling about this recent decision.

This is very good news. We are pleased to see that the Department of Justice is moving in this direction against the state of Arizona. They show me your papers. moving in this direction against the state of Arizona. The Show Me Your Papers law is another example of extremist voices in Arizona doing a continuation of what they have been doing, which is making it harder for people to vote. the Border Registration Act, Law of 1993, and also the Civil Acts Right of 1964. So it's a violation of federal law. So we're happy to see the Department of Justice moving in this direction. We in Familia Vota have a lawsuit also in Arizona a couple months back,

also similar to what we're seeing from the Department of Justice. And our approach is a violation of the first and 14th Amendment, which is the constitutional right for everybody to vote. The important element of the history of our nation in this moment is that there are very anti-democratic extremist voices in the nation that are trying to make it hard for people of color and minorities and certain communities to exclude them from the democratic process. This is not something new. This is something that we have seen since the inception of our nation, when only white men with land could vote,

and they want to go back to medieval times where only some people can vote. But we're not going to let this happen, and this is another example of what they're trying to do. Yeah, thank you for that. Let's talk a little bit about, you talked about the history here of, you know, issues relating to preventing black and brown voters from voting. It's a lot law history here. We've seen since the last presidential election, a number, you know, more than a dozen states pass a variety of voter suppression laws, right? A lot of people describing. So what does that tell you in terms of where we are as a nation? We need to be extremely careful, and that's the beauty of democracy. These are the same people that are still contesting in Arizona the elections of 2020, saying that there was a fraud.

They're coming from that perspective. But this is a trend that we're seeing all over the nation. almost 1,000, I think it's 188 pieces of legislation in 49 states, trying to make it harder for people like you and me, with anybody that has accent like this or anybody that looks maybe the way we look or maybe the way we vote, to make it harder for us to participate in the process. This is just a poll tax that they want to do in certain people. And this could affect 200,000 voters in the next presidential election. We need to be extremely careful and we need to fight back. It's good to see the Supreme Court in 19 in 2013 already

took a position on this a on this case a similar case so there is a precedent here and the Supreme Court saying no this is a violation of the first and fourteen amendment so they want to keep pushing in this direction probably they want to take this to the Supreme Court. We need to be extremely careful, because we know that at this moment we have an extremist Supreme Court that are coming after everything, including our democracy. They are coming after the rights of women. They are coming after the environment. They are coming after the rights of the LGBTQ community. And if this goes to the Supreme Court, I'm worried that they are going

to decide against democracy. So what they're trying to do is to make it harder for people, for minorities, for people of color to have access to democracy. And we know how hard it is for people of color to get access to democracy. Why do we need to wait six hours to vote? Why do we need to go and do so many things to have the basic right to vote in this nation, a nation that claims to be the best and strongest democracy in the world? It's totally unacceptable. I am fortunate enough that I was trained by an African-American organizer, somebody that came from the tradition of voting rights and the history of Selma to Montgomery. Spaces where people literally die for the right to vote. We cannot go back decades on what we have accomplished as a democracy, what we have accomplished as a nation.

So we need to keep fighting. we need to keep staying alert, and we need to keep moving to make this a better democracy. Yeah, thank you for those comments. You highlighted really important points regarding the Supreme Court. Certainly, you know, over the last few months, a number of their decisions, including Roe v. Wade, among others, and concerns regarding the Voting Rights Act, et cetera, you know, have been raised over the last couple of months.

So let's, I want to bring in my panel of experts, so they have the opportunity to pose a few questions. So welcome to our panel. First, we have A. Scott Bolden, former chair of National Bar Association, PAC. Next, we have Robert Petillo, executive director of Rainbow Push Coalition. And next, we have Lauren Victoria Burke, writer for NNPA and the Griot. So let's start with Lauren. Lauren, a question for our guests.

Yes. So I see that the law, the Republicans were requiring proof of citizenship. What was the actual proof that you had to have to prove your citizenship? Yeah, that's interesting that we even have to analyze this element because basically these people want us to have our birth certificates, carry our birth certificates everywhere we go. But the point is that it's just an extra excuse to make it harder for people to participate. And not only for immigrants.

These are people that are already registered to vote, people that already went through the process. And just like the Department of Justice said, this is an extra burden on voters just for having the right to vote. It's fully aligned with all the voter suppression elements that we have seen all over the nation, sometimes with a strong focus on the African-American community and excuses to make it harder for the African-American community to participate in the process. In this case, they are using the element of immigrants, trying to vote in undocumented immigrants

or immigrants that cannot vote, which is something that we have been listening to from the very extremist voices and the former president used all the time, claiming that there was a fraud. So it's fully aligned with those elements. We know how hard it is to go through the process in the nation. I see some of the organizations in this panel that do a lot of this work on the front lines, making access to democracy better. Some of us do voter registration, GOTV, voter education, citizenship. We know all the elements that are in place to make sure that we have the right to vote.

And voter fraud is pretty much non-existent in the nation. So it's another of those excuses and patterns that we have seen in other states. Yeah. Thank you for that. So I want to go on. Next, I want to give Scott an opportunity to pose a question. Scott, do you have a question? Yeah, actually, I do. You know, this DOJ challenge sounds very similar to the 2013 case, Arizona versus one of the Indian tribes, where the Supreme Court 7-3 decision, I think it was 7-3, no, had to be 7-2, forgive me, indicated that you couldn't use government forms to prove citizenship in the voting process. It would seem the DOJ has a pretty strong case here. Do you see that same similarity? Yes. I think there is precedent in the

Supreme Court, not only in what I mentioned on the case in 2013 as a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment, but I think the Department of Justice is also making the strong case of violation of federal law with the National Voting Registration Act of 1993 that has been literally helping so many people, giving easier access for the right to register to vote and participate in elections. And it's also one of the central sections of the Boring Rights Act of 1964. So we have a lot of precedent here in history and in the elements that are making the case

for this just to be not only totally unacceptable, but these people want to take us back to times that are bad for our democracy. I want to mention something unique about Arizona. Arizona really brings the worst in the nation, but also the best that we have in the nation. I want to reflect on something that mi familia vota was involved. After SB 1070, almost 10 to 12 years ago, that we have in the nation. I want to reflect on something that my family was involved in after SB 1070, almost 10 to 12 years ago. At the time, the most anti-immigrant piece of legislation,

Arizona kept pushing for more extremist measures, and I'm just mentioning one. We had some of the most extremist politicians, the ones that opened the doors to have somebody like Trump elected to office, the most extremist, or one of the most extremist presidents that we have in our history. But it was also beautiful to see what our communities did. The immigrant community organizing some of the most powerful marches in unity with the African-American community,

with some of the different communities, with the indigenous communities, mi familia volta in collaboration with other amazing organizations that are fighting for democracy in Arizona, created the tables to register people to vote, et cetera. We were able to get rid of extremist politicians like Arpaio, Sheriff Arpaio, and others in the state, and change the political composition of the state. We are a nonpartisan organization. We're a nonprofit organization, but it was important to send that message. So

we're seeing a lot of the struggles, but it's good to see the positive elements too. Yeah. Hector, thank you for that. You talked about Arizona's interesting history, kind of pulling from both sides when it comes in, like the nation is struggling on this issue relating, and particularly, like I said, voting rights. I can't hear, guys. So what I'd like to do next is I'd like to bring in, you know, Robert to pose a question. ED of Rainbow Push Coalition. Robert, any question you'd like to pose to Hector?

Certainly. And absolutely, we understand the fight for voting rights nationwide. I have a two-part question, actually. So part one of the question is, this being a Department of Justice action, which is brought in the federal courts, we've seen that the federal courts, President Trump and Mitch McConnell have been stacking them with conservative justices for years. We have an activist conservative court that we saw overturn Roe, overturn environmental regulations. How do you think that these compositions of federal courts will play into whether or not there's a valid verdict in this case and adjudication, and what are the options thereafter? And then secondarily,

it's kind of the political aspect of this, which is we saw in 2020 close to 30 percent of Latino and Hispanic voters voting for President Trump. Is there a way to turn that around when it comes to trying to address this in the ballot box? So many people in the Hispanic Latino community deciding to vote in favor of the same people who want to stop them from voting. Yeah. No, thank you. First of all, thank you for all the work that you and your organization do. We have partnered in the past. We have actually marched together in a number of spaces. So it's great to be here with you and with the Reverend, too. Those are very important questions. And the first thing that we need to remember, especially at this moment, is that minority voters decided the last presidential election. It was because of minority voters that Trump didn't get reelected.

We have historical numbers of Latinos voting out to vote in this presidential election. And I want to clarify the point that it's not true that a majority of voters voted for Trump. There were some that voted for him, but the majority of voters came out, Latino voters came out in historical numbers. And I think the main point of that election was that we decided that presidential election. We, I mean, Black, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, et cetera. And the other story that is the most important one that the media didn't really cover is the majority of white voters, after four years, actually voted for Trump. That was the main issue that we need to highlight. So we need to keep investing in communities of

color. The majority of the money related to democracy goes to white communities, and only a very small fraction of that money from foundations, from parties, from anything related to democracy goes to white communities, and only a very small fraction of that money from foundations, from parties, from anything related to democracy comes to communities of color. Democracy is very expensive, and the message is we need to keep investing in borders of color because borders of color turn out and turn out in historical numbers. Yeah, thank you for that, Hector. He highlighted your last kind of comment there about, you know, democracy is expensive. So we have to invest.

And democracy is like a plant that flourishes, right? So if you ignore it, it dries up. If you continue to nurture it the way it is, it will continue to grow and flourish. So listen, Hector, I really appreciate your time. Once again, CEO of my familiar Voda, appreciate you joining us today and look forward to having you in the show. Thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation and thanks for keep fighting for democracy. All right. So we're going to take a break. Please continue to join us and Roland Martin

on Filtered and Black Star Network. Like I said, we'll be right back. The horizon just gave us all a brand new iPhone 13. We've been customers for years. We got iPhone 13s too. Switched two minutes ago, literally right before this. iPhone 13 on us on any unlimited plan for every customer. With plans starting at just $35. All on the network more people rely on.

Of course I looked up to Spike Lee. Of course, who didn't? I mean, he's a genius. But then also, I was this kid from Brooklyn that felt like, you know... Give me my damn respect. You know, I made this, you know, this creative art, right, that people are responding to. And it would have been great if we had the opportunity to sit one-on-one. Hold on one second. Okay. Spike. What's up, baby?

So I'm in L.A. right now. I got a one-on-one series with my network, Black Star Network, and I'm interviewing Maddie Rich. I appreciate that, bro. That was a big moment, man. That was like, man, that was good. Got me all choked up. That's a big moment, man. That was like, man, that was good. Got me all choked up. That's good.

Well, I'm all about connecting. Appreciate that. Love our new Alexa. It's a Buick. Yeah, Alexa. Buick new Alexa. It's a Buick. Yeah, Alexa. Buick. Alexa. It's a Buick.

It's an Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. Coach, that's a Buick. That's an Alexa. The Buick Enclave with available Alexa built in. We're all impacted by the culture, whether we know it or not. From politics to music and entertainment, it's a huge part of our lives.

And we're going to talk about it every day right here on The Culture with me, Faraji Muhammad, only on the Black Star Network. How about sushi? I just had sushi for lunch yesterday. How about sushi? I just had sushi for lunch yesterday. Yeah. How about tacos? Automatic emergency braking. One of six advanced safety features standard on every 2022 Chevy Equinox. Find new technology.

Find new roads. Chevrolet. Hi, I'm B.B. Winans. Hey, I'm Donnie Simpson. What's up? I'm Lance Gross, and you're watching Roland Martin Unfiltered. Welcome back to Roland Martin Unfiltered. So White House counsel to President Donald Trump reaches a deal to be interviewed Friday by the White House Committee

investigating the January 6th attack. Chipotle, uh, Vaisal, uh, is who served as counsel repeatedly fought Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He agreed to sit down and for videotape and transcribe interview. Since Chipotle's, uh, subpoena came after former white house House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified. Now, Chipolli warned Hutchinson to bar Trump from going to the Capitol as former Vice President Mike Pencevert the election by faking electoral ballots, attempting to replace

the Department of Justice leadership, and trying to interfere with Congress's activities on January 6th. He's also expected to tell the committee about Trump's discussions about seizing voting machines and sending false letters to state officials about election fraud. So let's turn to our panel to talk a little bit about this story. Obviously, this is really key as it relates to the work of the January 6th committee. So what I want to do is I want to start with Robert. Robert, what are your thoughts about this recent information in the last, you know, several hours about agreeing to testify and what it means for the January 6th committee?

Well, you know, I think it's interesting with Pat Cefaloni because the question is going to be exactly to what extent he's able to exert attorney-client privilege as far as any conversations may go, and then whether or not he'll try to exert the conceptualization of executive privilege for any conversations he had with the president. Also, he has the ability, as we saw with many other Trump officials, to simply sit down and plead the fifth to absolutely everything that is questioned. So it's less important whether or not he's willing to sit down. answer the questions in regards to many of the aspects of the testimony from Ms. Cassidy last week. I do think that in this situation, you're seeing everybody in Trump land kind of scattered to ensure that they are shielding themselves from legal liability. The prosecutor here in Atlanta,

Fannie Willis, we saw a grand jury come down with subpoenas for Rudy Giuliani, for Jenna Ellis, for other Trump officials. We were seeing the Northern District of New York investigation currently proceeding with regards to the Trump organization. It seems as if the walls are closing in. But anybody who used to watch House of Cards or Netflix knows there's a good chance of the protagonists always squeaking their way out of it. So I think this is something we have to monitor, not simply be distracted by all the other issues going on in the country right now. This is the most grave threat toward democracy that we've ever seen. And for people to simply forget about it, to think about it simply being

summer drama or part of the regular political situation, no, if you normalize this sort of behavior and this sort of action, every single election will look like January the 6th going forward. And that's how you lose a republic. If you think about the fact that France is on their fifth republic, we could be entering the second American republic if we do not handle this correctly. And I do hope that the Justice Department is watching these hearings intently, with an eye towards prosecuting if the information is concomitant with that. Yeah, that's a good point in terms of what DOG plans to do with this information from the January 6th commission. It's also, I love that you got a Netflix house of cards, you know, play in there. So appreciate your thoughts on that. Scott, what are your thoughts

about the emigre to testify? What do you think it means for the committee? Well, I will beg to differ somewhat with my colleague in that they wouldn't have him testifying at a public hearing if he wasn't going to talk. There's no value in the committee for simply allowing him to get up and do the Fifth Amendment or invoke the executive privilege. So that's not going to happen. What's really more interesting, in my opinion, is what he's told them already. Because remember, he's been interviewed already, or his lawyers have told them, or proffered something, if you will. And there's something of value as the committee puts together its referral to DOJ that, one, they want the public to hear, but, two, they think it's informative and material to that particular referral. And so I think he will be coming after the young aide to the vice president, or rather the chief of staff.

I think everyone is going to anticipate and want to hear White House counsel's view of the world. Because remember, his client is not Donald Trump. His client is the White House. And so the attorney-client privilege probably doesn't apply there, even if he's communicating to Trump about the institution of the White House or something that's going to affect it. And so I think it's worth taking a close look at it, listening, and see what he's going to say, but also what he said already, because I don't think the privilege applies to Donald Trump, the person.

And you've got the crime fraud exception as well. Yes, Scott, you hit on a very important point that I've heard people talk about before in terms of talking about the difference between the institution and then the individual. Right. So we have, you know we have presidents every few years or so, but as counsel, your responsibility is to the institution. We're talking about the executive branch. So I think that's a really important point. So let me go to Lauren. Lauren, what are your thoughts about what's going to happen?

What is, you know, maybe additional information he's going to share? What do you think is going to happen when he testifies? Well, Larry, I think I agree with Scott on this. I don't think they would have had a discussion about having a discussion, whether it's transcribed or not, or on video, if he was going to sit there and say absolutely nothing. Also, it's been reported by the Guardian's Hugo Lowell that they had some sort of discussion about which topics they would discuss during this interview.

So I'm thinking if you're having conversations about specific topics that you're going to discuss, that it's unlikely that you're just going to invoke attorney-client privilege or executive privilege the entire time. Either way, even if he were to do that, and Robert could, of course, be right, and if he does sit there and take the fifth or attorney client or any of that, this committee has a very good track record at making any content that comes into the committee very valuable and presentable to the American people. So if this conversation is transcribed and then on video and they present him just taking, you know, hitting the privilege button for every question. And that's

just going to be what's shown to everybody. And I'm not sure that's a particularly good look, particularly when you're asking questions about, very basic questions about the Capitol being attacked and our democracy. And I mean, these are questions that should be easily answered, you know. And we've already seen it with a few people where those seemingly easy questions were not answered. I'm thinking about Michael Flynn in particular on that one. So I think he's going to say something. And what he's going to say, I don't know. He won't want to do that either, though. The witness, Cipollone, he won't want to sit there in front of America and invoke the fifth or executive privilege either. You said it wasn't a good look for the committee, I think.

It's not a good look for anybody in that process. So I think you're absolutely right. He's talking. So Scott thinks he's going to have something to say. Robert, I want to go back to you. I would say on that point, you can, because remember, this is a quasi courtroom proceeding. This is also a PR proceeding for the people on the January 6th committee. It's also shaping public opinion around this. So if you have someone sitting there just pleading the fifth to every single thing, well, that gives the

person answering the question the ability to simply testify for them. And every time you ask a question, they plead the fifth to it. So I think there's absolutely value of calling him even if he's not going to say anything, because just as you said with Flynn, when you're asking them simple questions in live in-person testimony, and then every single time to every single question they're pleading the fifth, well, that is impugned against the witness who's failing to answer those questions. So I think there's value to that also. So that's why I think there's a good chance

that there's a good number of questions he ain't going to answer. He might do an open statement, then plead to the fifth, and then walk on out. So he's got to make good team. Robert just made a really good point, which is that the presentation, it's like a court trial. This is

not presented like a hearing. They didn't make the mistake. Congressman Benny Thompson didn't make the mistake of every member talks and everybody's going to be sitting there for 10 minutes questioning back and forth. It's presented like a trial, you know, and a trial with a sort of one-sided thing where basically the defense doesn't get to talk, the prosecution is talking the whole time on this trial. So their presentation skills so far have been really good, and I have a feeling that's gonna continue with Mr. Cipollone.

I have a... Yeah, but you know, the GOP... Go ahead, Scott. The GOP also didn't... The GOP made that decision. Kevin McCarthy, and I think it was a huge error looking back, because their people, they refused

to participate and put their rabble-rousers or those difficult members who were witnesses or bad actors, a couple of them, on the committee to disrupt the committee. They wouldn't even participate. And so now you've given the Democrats this great platform on

TV to not only present it as a trial, take care of their PRPs, educate the public, and cover their politics three to six months before midterm. So these hearings, every time they're broadcast, all the work they've done, these are wins for the Democrats, notwithstanding inflation, notwithstanding the Supreme Court. These are wins in this particular space for the Democrats, notwithstanding inflation, notwithstanding the Supreme Court. These are wins in this particular space for the Democrats. And Scott, I would... Go ahead, Robert, before we move on to the next one. Yeah, and I would treat this, if I was Liz Cheney, if I was Benny Thompson,

I would treat this like a cross-examination, that if I know for a fact that you're about to come in there and plead the Fifth, once you start pleading the Fifth, you have to continue pleading the Fifth to everything because otherwise you pierce the privilege. That once you, if you answer one question, don't answer the rest of them, then that's even more incriminating against you because this is a quasi-legal situation. So once he starts pleading the Fifth, you can start asking him anything and he has to plead the Fifth to it. Did Trump know that they were going to storm

the Capitol? I plead the Fifth. Did Trump try to strangle the security guard to get to the Capitol? I plead the Fifth. Did Trump and the strangle the security guard to get to the Capitol? I plead the Fifth. Did Trump try... Did Trump and the Proud Boys plan to overthrow the United States government? I plead the Fifth. You can get him saying anything, so even if he's just going to plead the Fifth,

that actually could be more valuable than his actual testimony. Yeah, so... And what are you asking what his mama's name is? What's your mama's name? What's your mama's name? Keep going. So it's gonna be really interesting to see if... What's your mama's name? What's your mama's name? Keep going. So it's going to be really interesting to see if we're going to get what we saw with the videotaped General Flynn pleading the Fifth.

It's some very troubling, basic questions. Or are we going to get what we saw last week, what is a completely transparent feedback about some of these conversations that took place in the White House. So, like I said, it'll be really interesting to see what happens. But in terms of overall, the PR of this is also what's really important. So, obviously, the information that the committee is getting, but that's also, Lauren, you talked about that, touched on that a little bit, some of the other guys did also, in terms of the PR, like who's winning this PR battle? How many people are watching? How's the presentation? So, this is going to be interesting to continue to see how that plays out long term. So I want to go into our next story,

which is also equally important. So today, President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris spoke with Sherelle Griner, who is the wife of Brittany Griner, who is being wrongfully detained in Russia. And obviously, a lot of people have read about this. So what, you know, I want to talk, like I want to talk to you guys. She's been reassured. Griner's spouse has been reassured that the White House has done everything they possibly can. I think the great thing about this story, we're seeing more and more about it on the social media and the news. So the president apparently has directed his national security team to remain in regular contact with Sherelle and Brittany's family.

We remember that debacle that happened not too long ago when she placed the phone call. He also mentioned he's working on to release Paul Whelan and other U.S. nationals who are wrongly detained or held hostage in Russia around the world. So what do you guys, what are your thoughts about this, about, you know, what's recently happened with President Biden, who's gotten a lot of heat because some people felt like the White House hasn't done enough, but it seems like over the last couple of weeks, they kind of picked up the pace a little bit. Lauren, let's go to you first. The White House messaging right now is problematic on a lot of fronts, not just Brittany Griner, but the Griner thing is a good example. They weren't making enough noise on this. They weren't talking about it enough. And her letter to the president blew the doors off of the White House briefing yesterday.

And, you know, Karine Jean-Pierre got question after question after question and had no real good answers as to what the plan is with Brittany Griner. It makes absolutely no sense that, you know, it's too quiet. Why is she over there this long? Why aren't they at least talking about it? Why aren't they at least using the bully pulpit? And this comes on the heels, of course, the Highland Park shooting, where the president barely says anything about that. And there's a feeling, a growing feeling that the president is not up to the task of really showing concern on some of these bigger issues going into the midterms. And the Griner issue is just another example of the level of quiet on something that shouldn't be quiet. An American should not be in Russia in prison

for the nonsense that she's in prison for, and then nobody saying anything about it. And, you know, she's got to write a letter and blow the doors off the media cycle for, and then nobody's saying anything about it. And, you know, she's got to write a letter and blow the doors off the media cycle for, to get attention. That shouldn't be what's going on. So they got caught on that. So now they had the president, the vice president talk to her directly or talk to, I'm sorry, her wife directly. And they've got to, they got to catch up. They got to catch up on this. They've got to catch up on gas prices. They've got to catch up on this. They've got to catch up on gas prices. They've got to catch up on guns.

You know, so something's going on and communications land over at the White House, and I don't know what exactly that is. I'll be at the White House tomorrow, so maybe I'll find out. I don't know. I don't know what's going on. Yeah, hopefully, Lauren, you get a little more feedback. I want to talk, you mentioned something that's really important, and I've seen a lot

of harsh critiques relating to what you discussed, and that's PR as it relates to the White House. They really struggle with messaging since the Biden administration took office. And this is one of the issues, and particularly when it comes to the black community, that they've received a lot of pushback. And it's certainly no coincidence that the VP and the vice, and the president are meeting Greiner's spouse based on, like I said, a lot of the criticism they've received. Scott, let me

go to you. Is this a turning point for the White House on this issue? Or are we going to continue to see the status quo? What are your thoughts? It's a turning point for them to turn back to what they normally do. I mean, listen, I've given the Democratic Party and the two people in the White House tons of money. So I have a right to be critical when it's time to be critical. And their messaging, their PR piece, not just on Briner, on the George Floyd Act, on the Voting Rights Act. There seems to be an inertia there or an inability to use the bully pulpit to count votes, to go to the extreme, to do what is necessary to get these wins. You would think they would extend themselves and be excellent in all of these communication

and messaging points and winning political points because their very survival and success of their party depends on it. But there's a sense that they don't, that the Briner issue, that the Supreme Court issue, not the Supreme Court issue, but the Briner issue, the George Floyd issue, the Voting Rights Act,

you know, if they can't get bipartisan support, and they're gonna leave those two senators there, Manchin and Sinema, to jack up, if you will, and to put a finger in the eye of getting these things done, given their slim majority, and the midterms coming up, it just doesn't seem like they get it, almost. And they've got some really bright people there, capable people, outstanding folks, big brains, but it doesn't seem to be getting done.

And I don't want to hear that the margins are so close that people have to go out and vote again in huge numbers in order to get a supermajority so that those two senators are irrelevant. Okay, that's a long-term play, but I think all bets should be off, and there should be no legislation, political or otherwise, on getting some of these issues done that affect black and brown communities because black and brown communities put them in the White House.

And so we'll continue to watch it, but I don't have a really positive prediction for the White House or the House and Senate vis-a-vis the Democrats maintaining control of 2022 or 2024 unless this thing gets moved. Yeah. Thank you for this. It's really important insight. So, Robert, I want to go to you. And let me frame this a little bit in terms of what we've heard from your colleagues. So, we talk about a messaging issue as it relates to the White House. And like I said a few minutes ago, that's been a consistent criticism.

So, the Grindr issue, many people on social media and many in terms of conversations in black communities about this particular issue, I even heard some commentators say, well, this is LeBron James. You know, there will be a different response, right? So we have the issue, particularly we deal with black women. We talk about the support of black women. So, Robert, give me your thoughts about how the White House has handled it, how this issue related to Griner prior to, and then what

are your thoughts about the meeting with her spouse? Well, you know, the issue is that when you leave this vacuum out there, we don't explain to the American people what is going on and what is the strategy, then you allow people on social media and other places who have literally no idea what the hell they're talking about to fill the vacuum. Let me give you an example. All right, your visual aid. So let's look at where Russia is at in Ukraine right now. What they're trying to do is do a movement around the eastern borders to take the Donbass into Lujan's regions. Then they want to go through Mariupol to consolidate their gains in Crimea, and then go on towards

Odessa. They're almost at Odessa right now, which will be creating a southern corridor between them and Moldova, which would effectively strap in Ukraine with no southern border, no access to the Azores Sea, no access to the Black Sea, no access to the Mediterranean, and then also be kind of bracketed in by Belarus to the north, which no access to the Mediterranean, and then also be kind of bracketed in by Belarus to the north, which is going to become a part of the Russian Federation the next couple of years, effectively destroying the country of Ukraine without having to take Kiev. What we saw at the beginning of the conflict was a very quick blitzkrieg towards Kiev,

which failed, and then a longer, slower process, which we're seeing in the southern and the eastern regions, very similar to what we saw in Chesney in the late 90s and Georgia, the Georgian Republic in the mid-2000s. So what Russia has said is, we will give you the prisoners back. Just stop sending money to Ukraine so that we can finish our war a lot quicker. There will be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Ukrainians killed if we make that agreement with them. Secondarily, Russia said we want to do prisoner swaps. There's a Russian arms dealer named Viktor Bout

who was supplying arms to the FARC militia, a terrorist organization in Colombia, which is part of the reason we're seeing these issues at the southern border. The FARC terrorists are driving people from their homelands, creating these refugee crises up towards the southern border. The Russians have said, we will give you Britney Grinder, just give us our terrorists back. So you'll see tens of thousands of people dead in Central and South America through these arms deals if we make those deals. President Biden hasn't explained

this to people, which leads social media to make really, really dumbass statements like, well, if this was LeBron, he would be back already. No, they wouldn't, because you have socioeconomic and geopolitical aspects at work right now. And at the end of the day, when you leave a vacuum out there where people cannot understand what's going on, they make up their own things around it. I think that's been a failure to Biden press team. But on the Belarusian border and on the border of the Donbass region there in Ukraine.

And we should have known and we knew at that point that we should have been pulling Americans out of there, including American contractors like Brittany Griner. And because of those issues, that got us to the situation where we're at right now. But if you are not willing to explain to the American people in very granular terms what is going on, then the vacuum gets filled by social media. And that's where the Biden administration finds themselves at right now. There is no easy or quick solution to get through this. What Russia wants is trillions of dollars in oil and natural gas reserves in the south of Ukraine. They're not going to give that up when they're bargaining pieces being Britney Greiner. And if you make that deal right now, let's going to give that up with the give up when they're bargaining pieces being Brittney Griner.

And if you make that deal right now, let's say you make that deal with Russia right now that you will stop supporting Ukraine in exchange for Griner, you will return Victor Blunt in exchange for her, then Russia will know that any time we need anything from the West, just kidnap a celebrity and we're willing to negotiate with terrorists. That is not the precedent the United States of America can set. So it's terrible being in the middle of a foreign policy bouncy ball as it would be. But in reality, the United States cannot simply take the step of negotiating with the Russian Federation on this because that would set a precedent going forward where they would no longer be safe for Americans to go to Russia or any other nation that has foreign policy issues in the United States of America, because they would

also know that if they just kidnap an American celebrity, they can get what they want from the country. Yeah, that's a really important point in terms of Russia. Like I said, obviously the United States and Russia always have disagreements, but obviously what's happening in Ukraine is a much larger issue. So I want to go back to you really quickly, Scott, for just a minute. We heard this conversation about obviously Griner and the war in Ukraine. Obviously, these are connected.

And Russia in the past, as we are well aware, has used Americans as pawns when it comes to their political disagreements with the United States. So, Scott, I guess my question is, like I said, just for in a minute, what are your thoughts about how does the White House handle this moving forward? Okay, understand that Scott is no longer with us. So what I want to do now is I want to go to a commercial break. So Roland Martin Unfiltered will be back after this break. You're watching the Black Star Network.

Please join us back in a few minutes. Verizon just gave us all a brand new iPhone 13. We've been customers for years. I thought new phones were for new customers. We got iPhone 13s to switch to Verizon two minutes ago. Ours were busted and we still got a shiny new one. Check it out. So, wait. Everybody gets the same great deal. I think that's the point. iPhone 13 on us.

For every customer, current, new, everyone. On any unlimited plan. Starting at just $35. All on the network more people rely on. Love our new Alexa. It's a Buick. Yeah. Alexa. Buick. Alexa. It's a Buick. Yeah, Alexa. Buick.

Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. Coach, that's a Buick. That's an Alexa. The Buick Enclave with available Alexa built in.

Hi, I'm Dr. Jackie Hood-Martin, and I have a question for you. Ever feel as if your life is teetering and the weight and pressure of the world is consistently on your shoulders? Well, let me tell you, living a balanced life isn't easy. Join me each Tuesday on Blackstar Network for Balanced Life with Dr. Jackie. We'll laugh together, cry together, pull ourselves together, and cheer each other on. So join me for new shows each Tuesday on Blackstar Network, A Balanced Life with Dr. Jackie. How about sushi? I just had sushi for lunch yesterday.

How about tacos? Automatic emergency braking, one of six advanced safety features standard on every 2022 Chevy Equinox. Find new technology. Find new roads. Chevrolet. Pull up a chair. Take your seat. The Black Tape. With me, Dr. Greg Carr, here on the Black Star Network. Every week, we'll take a deeper dive into the world we're living in. Join the conversation only on the Black Star Network. Hi, I'm Gavin Houston. Hi, I'm Carl Payne. Hey, what's up, y'all? This is your boy, Jacob Lattimore, and you're now watching Roland Martin. Black Star Network. Zinala Martin has been missing since Monday from Pineville, Louisiana. The 14-year-old is 4 feet 9 inches tall, weighs 110 pounds, with blackish-brown short curly hair and brown eyes.

Zinala was last seen wearing gray jeans, a red T-shirt, and red and white Nike shoes. Anyone with information about Zinala Mari is urged to call the Rapides Parish Sheriff's Office at 318-473-6700. All right, so our next story, Grambling State University, and this is a topic that's been talked about a lot. It fired the women's head volleyball coach after only a short term, five months. President Rick Gallup and Dr. Scott, Vice President of Intercollegiate Athletics for Grambling, announced that Chelsea Lucas' termination on Tuesday

following an internal investigation within the volleyball program. Lucas was under fire for dismissing the entire volleyball team, leaving several students without their scholarships. Here's what Lucas said about her unexpected termination. Since I started at Grambling, I have been ordered not to speak to the media. My voice has unfortunately been silenced despite the rumors and accusations about me. As a result, I have not been able to provide my side of the story

about the many events that have occurred during my tenure as head volleyball coach at Grambling. I was told today, without notice or any opportunity for discussion, that I was being terminated. When I was asked why I was being terminated, the administration was not able to provide me with any details about why they decided to fire me. The university plans to begin searching

for a new coach this week. So let's just really quickly here, and ask a few of our panel members their thoughts on this. First, Lauren, let's go to you. What are your thoughts about this? We've been hearing about this issue about the women's volleyball team and the head coach's actions for the last couple months. Finally, there's a resolution. Lauren, what are your thoughts about Grambling State's actions, and did they take too much time? Well, she cut every member of the coach, former coach now, cut every member of the team

and revoked all of their scholarships. Now, I certainly don't, I'm not privy to the personnel details at Grambling State University. I can just only read what I see in the paper, but that is something that is a rare thing to have happen on any team at any college, that you revoke scholarships and that you cut a bunch of people off the team. So that was a controversial move. And of course, the school has every right to employ and not employ who they like. And they decided to move on to somebody else. Now, I'm a big believer in hearing both sides of the story. So when she says that big believer in hearing both sides of the story,

so when she says that she has not been able to air her side, it would be interesting to hear what exactly she's talking about. But what we do know publicly is fairly unusual. You know, revoking scholarships in particular is fairly unusual, unless there's a specific reason. Yeah, Lauren, you hit on a really important point, particularly revoking the scholarships. Particularly when we talk about a lot of students, particularly HBCU serve a lot of first generation college students. So you can imagine the trauma that many of these students experience when they found out that, you know, their scholarships are being revoked in the panic after that.

Scott, let's go to you about this, this Grambling State issue. Like I said, I'm sorry, Scott. I mean, we're going to go to Robert. Robert, we finally have a resolution on this issue. So what are your thoughts about, like I said, the steps that Grambling State has taken? I think this has been handled sloppily from the beginning with no clear,

there's no clear winner in this situation. For example, coaches are judged by wins and losses at the end of the day. You're an educator in the college level, but at the same time, if you lose all the damn games, you're not going to have a job anymore. So for a coach to come in and say, look, I'm cleaning the slate. I'm getting rid of all the players, getting rid of all the scholarships. Everybody has the opportunity to come back in and win their spot back and win their scholarship back because I want to get my people in there so I have the best chance of winning going forward seemed to be a very reasonable thing to happen.

I think that if Bobby Knight did this in basketball, nobody would say anything about this. So if Joe Paterno did this in football, nobody would say anything about it. But the fact of it being a Black woman taking a power move like that, I think that's why it became so controversial. Secondarily, I think that the school initially understood what she was doing, but then they caved to public pressure as this story kind of blew up on social media. And this is why you cannot let social media dictate everything that you do, because she was trying to put together the best team possible in order

for her to win. It's not as if she was Cruella DeVille just coming in saying, I'm going to take all these scholarships from these young Black women because I just coming in saying, I'm going to take all these scholarships from these young black women because I'm evil. No, she's trying to put together a winning culture and a winning team there because the reason that she was hired was to bring winning to that organization. So I think that as long as we continue to have employment and educational decisions built off of viral memes or social media discussions, it's going to be very difficult for people to do their jobs when part of your job has to be making the unpopular decision. It's easy to make the popular and easy decision,

and she would have kept on losing, and they would have fired her next year anyway for losing, but she got fired a year early for taking the steps she thought were necessary to not lose. So I think it was a cluster all the way around with no winner in the situation. Yeah, so I think it definitely was a PR, turned out to a PR nightmare for Granville State University. As we all know, we've heard it, but not only in terms of social media, but even I know some, you know,

Granville State alum who were very concerned about, you know, what took place. And so now it'll be interesting to see what state steps the former head coach takes. So let's go to our next story. A new report about the Vildale, Texas, elementary school massacre reveals a police officer asked for permission to shoot the gunman, but got no answer. by Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, includes a detailed timeline and more information about the shooting at Robb Elementary School on May 24th that led to the deaths of 19 students and two teachers. The findings indicate the officer had a rifle

and asked his supervisor if he could shoot the suspect, but the supervisor either did not hear or responded too late. And according to the report, some of the 21 victims could have been saved if medical attention had been received sooner. Law enforcement waited over an hour before breaching the classroom. Also, the 26-page report used video from the school police body cameras, information from the interviews with officers who were on the scene,

and other statements from investigators. So let's talk about this with our panel a little bit. Obviously, we had this tragedy just a few weeks ago, and one of many multiple tragic tragedies in the United States in terms of shootings and just recently this weekend. So what are your thoughts about this report? Let's start with Robert. What are your thoughts about the findings from this report? The more information that comes out, the more troubling it becomes, primarily because law enforcement lied to us.

The direct aftermath of the shooting, everything that they said for a solid week were nothing but lies, nothing but them covering their own tails in order to try to make themselves seem like not being the villains in the situation. I don't want to obscure and obfuscate from the conversation that has to be had around mental health and gun control, getting guns away from crazy people who can just walk in and buy them immediately and walk out and start shooting people. But at the same time, law enforcement has a duty to protect and to serve. And it seems that they have no problem shooting a black man 90 times, hitting him 60 times during a traffic stop. But somehow when there's a crazed gunman locked in a room full of people, well, now they're actually in danger, so you don't act, you don't respond. Yes, there are, of course, extenuating circumstances that may have resulted

in the failure to authorize this officer to take the shot. But at the end of the day, this officer probably should have jumped over the chain of command and just took the shot in order to end the situation. There's always going to be red tape. There's always going to be bureaucratic problems. But we have to have some sort of trust in law enforcement, not to just simply come out and lie to us. And at the end of the day, every single police shooting that we see in this country, often the first response of law enforcement is to lie to the public. And in this situation where they clearly failed at their jobs, they immediately went to their first instinct, which is to lie to the public to try to cover their tracks. And I think that that is the part that we have to investigate and change as far as police culture goes, this culture of lying to the public to cover your tails.

Because now in 2022, everything is on video, and it's a lot harder to make up this stuff going forward. Robert, you hit on some really important points, and that's why I have Lauren to kind of provide our insight on this, about the information that police officers provide and then how the media reports that. Because the criticism, specifically over the last couple of years, has been, particularly when it comes to police shooting, Robert Manson police shootings of Black people,

is that they provide some information. George Floyd is an example, among others. They provide some information. We get that from law enforcement. The media, you know, goes with it. And then we find out they have to do everyone has to do a 360. So, Laura, what do you what do you what are your thoughts about this report? And particularly in terms of, like I said, to continue, we see that it looks like, you know, what's happening in Texas was a travesty. Yeah, I mean, I actually feel like to a large extent, all the police and some of the associated agencies, you know, they had U.S. Border Patrol there that had some pretty good hardware. They had AK-47 style and AR-15 style rifles, and they didn't do anything. I almost want to say this is just a very strange, weird aberration, because I cannot imagine

another police department acting with this level of, just an absurd level of incompetence. I mean, on every level, the whole thing of just not following the basic protocol for active shooter, which has been known since Columbine. So, you know, we're almost 20 years into that. It's sort of a, you know, it's not like, I understand Uvalde is a small town. So we want to understand that, of course, they would not necessarily be dealing with this type of crazy lunatic event on any sort of regular basis. But at the same time, they did have enough personnel, and that personnel did, in fact, have the type of weaponry necessary to deal with this type of situation, and they didn't do it. And so it feels like, I mean, I don't want to say it's a fluke, but I can't imagine this happening in any other department in the United States, really. I'm not sure

why that's the case with Uvalde and nobody else, but this guy, Pete Arredondo, is clearly a dummy. And I don't understand why this is the case that this department in Texas, which is known for guns and Texas and we're big and we're tough and all this other stuff, doesn't seem to make any real sense. But when you look at the video from that day, they had plenty of opportunity to intervene. And for some strange reason, they didn't. And with regard to, you know, the police putting out false information, sure, that happens a lot. But if you see the Highland Park shooter, you know, you notice that in that case, that department is putting out information that

is embarrassing to that department. They had contacts with that shooter since 2019, and they're telling the public that. They're not trying to hide it. They're not trying to act like, you know, well, we didn't have any contact with this guy. No, they're saying it. They're actually being pretty transparent. I've actually seen two New York City Police Department, believe it or not, do that too, where they've just admitted, they've had a few shootings where they just admitted this person should not have been shot. It was a mistake. You know, it's rare that it happens, but it does actually happen. In the case of 19 kids being murdered and cops waiting outside the door for an hour.

This department should have admitted weeks ago that they made a massive, massive mistake. Somebody made a massive mistake in judgment. We think it's Pete Arradondo. That's actually hard to figure out, because, of course, he's not talking. So we have got this problem of having to pull out the information. And as Robert said, of course, correctly, they lied from the very beginning and then they got uncovered by the press, which was tremendously embarrassing and just so unnecessary, you know. I mean, this woman that we've seen, the mother of the two children that had to run in and

get her kids, and is begging the cops to, you know, give me your weapon and I'll go in and do it. That's just completely embarrassing, and I cannot imagine, I don't think we've seen anything like it in law enforcement. I can't think of another example. Yeah, Lauren, you highlighted some really important points, and particularly you talk about Highland, and obviously the police had contact,

you said previously, with this killer, and then unfortunately we saw the result just a few days ago. But in terms of what happened in Texas, it was certainly hopeful that nothing like we don't see this kind of terrible response from law enforcement. So it'll be interesting to see what additional information comes out. As you said, some people are closed- closed lip as it relates to really providing more information, talking to the public about why this failure occurred. And we certainly hopeful that this doesn't occur in any other U.S. jurisdiction and in the future. So at one point, at one point that I would make as far as why they may not have wanted to take the shot, as they say, in this

situation where you have an open shot at the shooter. They'll say that I'm pretty sure the police department probably had an AR-15 with about a 16-inch barrel, which is standard. So, hold on. So, with your AR, normally you have this risk of overpenetration. Robert's got props for today. Hey, look, they stay in here. But look, if you have this risk of overpenetration, which is if they're using a full metal jacketed bullet,

which they probably had loaded in there, you have the risk that it can go directly through the individual and hit one of the children. So that might have been the reason they did not want to take the shot at that time in a crowded classroom. And they had hollow point bullets, risk deformation, which is where it will hit something, mushroom out, and then not have penetrating power thereafter, which would alert the shooter that people are shooting at him, which may inspire him to shoot people in the classroom. So it's a tough decision to be made. But at the end of the day, tell us that from the beginning. Don't wait months down the line to come out and say whether or not that's the reasoning went to your decision-making, because if you don't do so, it becomes very difficult for the public to have any trust in anything you're saying.

Yeah, so we're dealing with the cover-up. And so we live in a society we live in, anytime there's something occurs and there's some kind of cover-up, undoubtedly the media, through public information requests, interviewing other people and investigators usually get the bottom of this. And unfortunately, like I said, this report points to what we've seen in some of the discussions, that there was a failure by law enforcement. And hopefully, like I said earlier, that we won't see this kind of failure in the future. So thank you for that, guys.

So I want to go to the next one. I'm going to take a few minutes to take a commercial. We're on Roland Martin Unfiltered. We'll be right back on the Black Star Network. Thanks for joining us. iPhone 13 on us for every customer. Current, new, everyone to show the love. How about sushi?

I just had sushi for lunch yesterday. Yeah. How about tacos? Automatic emergency braking. One of six advanced safety features standard on every 2022 Chevy Equinox. Find new technology, find new roads, Chevrolet. Of course I looked up to Spike Lee. Of course, who didn't?

I mean, he's a genius. But then also I was this kid from Brooklyn that felt like, you know. Give me my damn respect. You know, I made this, you know, this creative art, right, that people are responding to. And it would have been great if we had the opportunity to sit one-on-one.

Hold on one second. Spike. So I'm in LA right now. I got a one-on-one series with my network, Black Star Network, and I'm interviewing Matty Rich. I appreciate that, bro. That was, that's a big moment, man. That was like, man, that was good.

Got me all choked up. That's good. Well, I'm all about connecting. Appreciate that. Love our new Alexa. It's a Buick. Yeah, Alexa. Buick.

Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. Coach, that's a Buick. It's an Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. Coach, that's a Buick. That's an Alexa. The Buick Enclave with available Alexa built in.

I'm Debra Owens, America's Wealth Coach. And on the next Get Wealthy, what do the ultra wealthy know that most of us don't? Well, the truth is that there is financial exclusion. And unfortunately, far too many Black folks haven't had access to this knowledge. And that's exactly what we're going to talk about on our next Get Wealthy with Melinda Hightower, a banker who's doing something to share exactly what you need to do to make it into the high network status. They weren't just saving just to save. They were saving for a purpose. That's right here on Get Wealthy with me, America's Wealth Coach, only on Blackstar Network. Hit me. Hit me. Hit me. Go get your freak on.

Go get your freak on. Go get your freak on. Go get your freak on. Go get your freak on. Go. It's Kim Whitley. Yo, what's up? This your boy Ice Cube.

Hey, yo, peace, world. What's going on? It's the love king of R&B, Raheem Devon. And you're watching Roller Martin, Dr. Walker. So let's go into our next story. After six hours of deliberation in a California jury, convicts a man on trial for the murder of Grammy-winning rapper Nipsey Hussle. This is going to come down to the day. About 30 minutes.

Yeah. So, you know, I'm going to go ahead and get this. I'm going to go ahead and get this. I'm going to go ahead and get this. I'm going to go ahead and get this. I'm going to go ahead and get this. I'm going to go ahead and get this. trial for the murder of Grammy-winning rapper Nipsey Hussle. The decision is going to come down today. About 30 minutes.

Yeah. So... Wednesday, a first-degree murder, the two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and possession of a firearm in a 2019 slaying. Holder Jr. faces life in prison. The Los Angeles County jury found Holder not guilty of attempted murder against two men who were wounded in the 2019 shooting attack. So let's go to our panel about this issue, this tragedy. It relates to Nipsey Hussle.

So let's go to, we have Scott Beck. Scott, what are your thoughts about the jury's decision? I'm saying that you have a conviction for the shooting of Nipsey Hussle, I think, and then he was not guilty on the other two. There may have been more than one shooter. I'm not sure. But, you know, whatever the beef was, you know, the black-on-black crime, the guns, it all comes into play. And Nipsey Hussle was just an incredible rapper that was committed to the community and committed to the music.

Well-loved, beloved, and just a tragedy all around. Yeah, and certainly anytime we lose a life, and I think it's important, any loser in life, particularly when we see violence in the black community, it's important to find a way to prevent it. So I want to

talk to Robert next about the jury's decision. We talk about Nipsey Hussle, not only is he a rap artist, he was an entrepreneur. I think that's another thing that we would neglect to talk about. So Robert, what are your thoughts about the jury's decision? Well, I think it's the right decision. I think this also has to play into our conversation

nationally about gun violence in America. We've all talked about the Highland Park shooting in Chicago, or in the suburbs of Chicago this weekend. What people haven't talked about is the 85 other people who got shot in Chicago last weekend, the 25 other people who died in Chicago last weekend. When we have this conversation about gun control in this country, about gun violence and the number of people who are dying, the big mass shootings, where it's just some confused white kid, as they like to portray them, shooting a bunch of people, gets all the headlines. You know, we do these deep dives into the psychological profiles of the Uvalde shooter, of the Buffalo shooter, of the Highland shooter, of the Parkland shooter, et cetera. We talk about, you know, whether or not we should ban certain weapons in response to it.

We have none of that when it comes to gun violence in black and urban communities around the country. And we have to have a real conversation. How do we stop these things from happening. Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Fourth of July weekend. We had a shooting there, which cleared out the festivities there. There were shootings in New York. There was a planned mass shooting in Richmond, Virginia that was thwarted by law enforcement. We have to start taking gun violence holistically, not just mass shootings, not just urban shootings and somehow separating them, but saying that we need a concrete United States policy that stops dozens or hundreds of people every weekend in this country from being shot and dozens from dying every weekend. We look at fatality numbers in

America on just a regular weekend that are very close to what you see in war-torn regions around the world. If the United States was not in charge of the United Nations, the United Nations would be sending peacekeepers to America to stop us from killing each other. We have to find out what is causing this and how to break this down in a certain way. And as long as you have a gun lobby that controls at least one of the political parties in this country and recals the trends by the United States government to do anything about it, they're going to continue to see shootings like this and deaths every single weekend in America until we decide we're going to do something about it. Yeah, so, you know, Robert, you highlighted a couple points. First of all, you obviously talked about the shooting, what happened in my hometown of Philadelphia a

few days ago. And then I think you hit on a really important point in terms of gun violence. This is a public health issue. It isn't simply just a rural, urban, rural, suburban issue. There's a challenge that we deal with as Americans, and I think statistically we look at the United States per capita has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. So it is an issue of violence and also in terms of access, and there certainly is an issue we look at at a macro level and address it as a public health issue.

Lauren, I just want to kind of go to you for a second. You know, Robert highlighted a lot of really overarching, important points. But this thing, issue about Nipsey Hussle and this jury verdict, what are your thoughts about it? Yeah, I think the jury made the right decision. It's sort of weird to me that this guy's name is Eric Holder. I noticed that, you know, our friends on the right are having fun with that by putting the guy's name in every headline they can put him in. Obviously, he has no relation to Eric Holder, the former attorney general of the United States. But it was a sad situation to see Nipsey Hussle go because he was really an inspirational character. He's an

entrepreneur. He's a great rapper. And it's a huge tragedy and a senseless tragedy. And, you know, with regard to this idea that, you know, certainly we do have to talk about guns differently. I'm not sure why we need people like Bill O'Reilly sitting around trying to act like he wants to make the face of gun violence, always make the face of gun violence black and male, which is why he's so ticked off about what Governor Pritzker said in Illinois after the Highland Park shooting. real. These shootings where we have assault weapons that would be used in a theater of war, where people senselessly blow people away at Bible study and at the grocery store, and, you know, little kids at school, that's a different level of crazy than two guys beefing that shoot each other in the city. I mean, so this idea that, I mean, these two parents that were murdered in Highland Park and their little kid is left to fend for himself, and thank goodness there's a GoFundMe out there

to hit $2 million. But stuff like that and kids getting killed in their school is completely crazy. The fact that we accept this as the normal state of play in this country right now is disturbing. And the fact that we accept this as the normal state of play in this country right now is disturbing. And the fact that we accept it as the normal state of play in any city on any weekend is disturbing. But until the federal government gets serious, these cities really can't do anything about it because the guns are going to come in unless the federal government does something to try and at least stop the tide in a country that has over 350 privately held guns.

I mean, the fact that Robert Pattillo can reach to his right to his assault weapon, show it on TV, is interesting. I mean, the fact that I have inherited five or six firearms is interesting. I mean, we just act like this is all very normal. This is not normal behavior. And it shouldn't be seen as normal behavior. I mean, this is not normal that we get up and see on TV, you know, 19 kids murdered in their classroom. And we already saw it happen to Sandy Hook. And we sit up here and act like this stuff is just, you

know, it's just another story for another day. And I'm not understanding why we can't get to a level. I think part of it is a failure of the Democratic Party, quite frankly, a huge messaging failure. Because if you can't make messaging out of 19 kids getting murdered in their classroom, if you can't message against the party that thinks that that's just okay and normal, that's a problem. That's a huge messaging problem that you really shouldn't be having, particularly after Sandy Hook. So there's a lot to say here. But obviously, to get back to Nipsey Hussle, that was a terrible shame that he died like that. And at least somebody's being brought to justice. Yeah, Lauren, you hit on a lot of really important points. And it kind of connected with what you and Robert said. The other thing is sometimes we couch this as an urban

issue, right? So, you know, on the right, that's how they talk about and obviously the play on Eric Holder's name is an example of some of these issues we deal with with racism in America. But it's important to note as it relates to gun suicides, the rate at which it happens

in white rural communities. Because we talk a lot about urban communities because obviously a lot of networks are located in these larger metropolitan areas. But gun violence in terms of suicides by guns in white rural communities is a problem that the country continues, well, needs to talk about and figure out also a solution as we kind of just talk about,

like I said, issues just in black and brown communities. So thank you, everyone, for your feedback on that story. It's a really important issue. I certainly wish Nipsey Hussle and his family, I hope this brings them some kind of comfort, this jury decision. So let's go on to our next story in terms of issues related to mistaken identity in Nevada. A black man in Nevada will receive a $90,000 settlement after two police departments

were wrongfully arresting him for a white man's warrant. 24-year-old Shane Lee Brown was pulled over for having his headlights off, but was mistaken for Shane Neil Brown, a 51-year-old white man with a felony weapons warrant. Brown was held in Henderson and Clark County jails for six days. Both departments failed to check records on the man. Brown's settlement is close to Nevada's maximum cap of $100,000

for suing a government entity for negligence. I want to go back to our panel on this issue because I noticed some states had these cat maxes. So in my opinion, the money he received certainly is not nearly enough in terms of how he was treated. So let me go back to Scott on this issue. Scott, what are your thoughts about how the police department handled this, one? Then secondly, what are your thoughts about these, which is obviously a statement passed by the legislature, stopped by the governor at some point, these caps for when government misbehaves? Yeah. Incompetence, laziness.

It actually happens a lot if you were to go from state to state, because every life the police don't see us. Right. That's a light skinned brother or Hispanic brother. The picture was up. Right. He didn't look white. The war said he was a white man for weapons charge. And it's just incompetence and laziness and really not. They look like two different people. Eventually they got it right. And eventually they it took them quite a bit of time. But again, this happens a lot because the police simply are not being excellent every day. And so $90,000 is close to the cap. Every state has different caps on wrongfully incarcerating individuals or wrongfully, you called it negligence. They can wrap it up whatever way they want to wrap it up.

But if you're spending time in jail wrongfully, you ought to be compensated. There are states that have insurance limits on people charged, wrongfully charged and incarcerated and wrongfully imprisoned. They have caps like a million dollars where the gentleman or the person has been in jail for 27 years. And they fight to keep you away from that million. In Illinois, in New York, there are no caps, I don't think. And so there's no federal legislation or law that governs wrongful incarceration of individuals and how they should be compensated. There's no uniform code on that.

And so depending on where you commit the crime, depending on where you are incarcerated, if you get out because of DNA testing or because of good lawyering, the next fight is not just that you got out, but the next fight is that is the state going to compensate you at a level that would be appropriate for being wrongfully imprisoned? Most states don't. Some that don't have limits, each of them are going to make you fight for it because guilt on their part doesn't play into the amount of dollars they're trying to hold on to. And so there needs to be a federal uniform code for these types of wrongful incarcerations and how they are compensated, what you have to prove, so that whatever the maximum is, it's the maximum across the board,

even if you're not in the federal penitentiary, if you're in the state penitentiary, so the states can get on the same page as well. Yeah, I think those are really important points. And look, his constitutional rights were violated. They got the wrong person. And you said this amount of money, it constitutional rights were violated. They got the wrong person. And this, you know, you said this amount of money, you know, they certainly look, you know, it varies based on state. It's almost like the government, the state governments anticipate that they're going to be negligent or racist or offensive or do something wrong to their own citizens, and their citizens pay taxes, and then their

own government, when they are wrong, for example, in West Virginia, when they are wrong, the state literally litigates against them and advocates against giving them any money beyond the cap, and they'll fight you to even get to the cap, whether it's negotiations, settlement negotiations, or whether it's litigation, whether it's administrative process or a litigation process. The state actually fights you, even though they would admit liability or admit negligence on the record, but the amount of money they fight you, which is your tax dollars, you know, never, never fully compensates you for the wrong that was done. It's crazy. Yeah, it really, it really is unfortunate. And I want to go to Robert next, because this is a constitutional issue, civil rights issue, right, Robert? So talk to me about what are your thoughts

about this story? Absolutely. And when we talk about the George Floyd Justice of Policing Act, we talked about this concept of the waiver of qualified immunity or sovereign immunity when it comes to suits against officers and municipalities. That also should have, and hopefully in the future will include, this idea of uncapped liabilities. The only thing that changes the way that people or entities act is the threat of litigation. Oftentimes, Scott will tell you that. Any trial lawyer will tell you that. And so right now, $90,000, that's just the cost of doing business. That's like one squad car, quite frankly, just to be able to lock up and meet up Black folks every once in a while.

If you uncap damages to the point that individuals are able to sue and you have to start renaming streets and buildings after Pookie and Ray Ray and them, guess what? They will stop doing it. And that's why it's so important to have these things addressed both on the state and federal level, because we have differing sets of laws depending on what state you are abused in. And the best way to get these people to stop doing it is to put at risk their pensions, put at risk their kids' college fund, put at risk their pensions, put at risk their kids' college fund, put at risk their beach house and their mortgage and everything that they've ever built in their life. If they know that if I get this call wrong, it can cost me everything, I bet you

they'll get the call right more often. And if cities and municipalities understand that their officers get the call wrong, then they'll be out millions of dollars. Then at the end of the day, they will start training their officers better. They'll start putting in safeguards to make sure it doesn't happen. That's how people took down the tobacco industry. That's how they took down asbestos. That's how you take down many things that harm people by litigating them out of existence. And as long as you have statutory caps in place, you take away any disincentive for people to continue bad actions. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for that.

You know, I want to go to you, Lauren, because, you know, Robert's highlighting some interesting points here. You know, we have these caps, but you've got to hold somebody responsible for, you know, infringing on somebody's civil rights. You just throw them in jail. Obviously, the police didn't do in terms of checking, you know, using the checks, whatever checks and balances they have in place to make sure they had the right person. So what are your thoughts about this case?

Well, as Scott said correctly, it's laziness and foolishness. I mean, the guy, not only does he not look like the guy, they're not even the same age. I mean, somewhere on the description should have said the suspect's age. And those two guys did not look like they were close in age. So who the hell knows how that happened? I mean, it's just dumb. You guys probably remember late last year, the case of Kevin Strickland in Missouri, who was in jail, wrongfully convicted for 43 years, wrongfully convicted for a triple homicide, and the state of Missouri did not want to compensate him for one dime.

So to go back to what the great attorney A. Scott Bolden said, you need some sort of federal guidance, federal law on that, because that should not even be in the cards. And of course, what ended up happening with Kevin Strickland was, and I thought this was weird, too, that, you know, his attorney set up some sort of $7,000 GoFundMe, and, of course, that went to over a million in, like, a matter of about a week. But the fact that the state of Missouri thought that they could get away with that and the fact that the state of Missouri had absolutely no intention

of compensating him in any way for that wrongful conviction. And of course, prosecutors, they want to notch the bedpost. They want the body count. They want to be able to say they got the person, prosecutors and the police want to be able to say they got the person. So, you know, it's like, oh, if we made a mistake, there's no penalty for them. And then, of course, 43 years later, you're not dealing with the same personnel that you had 43 years before. But as Robert pointed out, if you were to attach some sort of penalty for that wrongful conviction to the people who made the wrongful conviction happen, maybe you could get some some changes in this. We see this all the time. This is why the Innocence Project exists. And if you go to any Innocence Project website, you will see cases that will absolutely shock you.

The Strickland case was 43 years, but it's not uncommon to see 30 years, 20 years, et cetera. And it's certainly not uncommon that the person in question is a black male. It's as if they just arbitrarily grabbed some sort of black male. It's as if they just arbitrarily grabbed some sort of black male. A lot of these cases seem to happen in the 1970s and threw him in jail. And of course, he has usually no representation or legal aid representation or very poor representation against the state. So, you know, this isn't just happening in a vacuum. It happens all the time. Yeah, Lauren, you highlighted a few good points. It's reflective of a flawed system that disproportionately impacts black and brown communities.

And you're right. We've known this for decades. It's book stories, research studies. We know this is an issue the United States has not dealt with. And like I said, it continues disproportionately to impact our community. All right, so what I want to do next is I want to go on to our next story. Rhode Island law enforcement officials are looking into the conduct of two long-time

Providence police officers. They were caught on video smashing a handcuffed man's face into the ground over the weekend. Around 9.30 p.m. Sunday, 21-year-old Armando Rivas was arrested by Captain Steven Gencarella and Lieutenant Matthew Jeanette at the city's Indiana Point Park

following Fourth of July celebration after he left his parked vehicle unattended in the traveling. Police say officers struck Rivas in the head, handcuffed him, and took him to the ground after he resisted arrest. Video obtained by GoLocalPrav shows R revis was handcuffed and lying face down when one officer grabbed his head smashed it into the pavement state attorney general peter uh nahura and the providence police department office of professional responsibility have opened an investigation into three of us arrest. So let's go to the story.

I feel like it's Groundhog Day, folks. I mean, how often do we either hear about these two stories on the news if they're reported? We certainly hear about them, and certainly when it comes to social media or conversations, which is conversations we're having today on Roland Martin Unfiltered or in other platforms in terms of how people are unfortunately being treated by law enforcement throughout the United States. So let's start with Robert. Once again, another another another civil rights issue.

Robert, what are your thoughts about this case? You know, I find it amazing that we're we're about 10 years into the cell phone video era, and this is still how police act. Think about how they were acting before there were cameras everywhere, before there were body cams, before there were cell phone videos, before there were surveillance cameras everywhere. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg because for every case like this that we see, you can walk into any jail in the country pretty much if you're in a major city. If you look at some of those people who got arrested over the weekend, they look like they went through an MMA match by the time they get into custody. And we

have to start changing police culture in this country, going back to the previous story, because the only way to do that is to allow these people to sue the officers individually. You have to take away qualified immunity. The taxpayers shouldn't be paying for those two cops beating the hell out of that black man. Those officers need to pay those off. They need to be fired. You need to be able to take their pensions. You need to be able to take their house, their car, their boat, their kid's college fund, their vacations.

Take all that stuff away from them. I bet you the next generation of cops will decide, well, maybe it ain't worth it to get this last lick in because he made me have to actually do some work and exert myself in trying to arrest him. There used to be this joke in Atlanta on Mondays called the Grady Tax, where police officers had to chase you anywhere. They had to do a foot pursuit. If you were not taken to Rice Street. They would take you directly to Grady because you would need to recover before you could even go to trial because that was just simply standard operating procedure back in the Red Dog days. And many police departments in the country still feel that way, even though they know they may or may not be recorded at this point in time. And the only way to change this is personal liability for officers. There's no other,, desk duty is not going to do it. The city paying out money is not going to do it.

You have to make the officers pay out individually, bankrupt a couple of these officers who like to beat people, and you'll get fewer officers liking to beat people. Yeah, thank you for that. So I want to go to you, Scott. This is right in your wheelhouse. So Robert highlights some good points. How do we prevent law enforcement from these behaviors? Robert, I would agree with

you, Robert, that if you start hitting their pocketbooks and their pensions, you get less officers or better government conduct. But that doesn't seem to be the case in regard to police brutality cases against black people. It doesn't. You're right. We're 10, maybe 12 years into videotapes and surveillance, and black people just keep getting beat up. Black and brown people keep getting beat up by officers. We've had high-profile trials. We have high-profile prosecutions. We've done, as a criminal justice system, done everything

there is to do in regard to the prosecution of bad police officers. We get better training. We got all these things. They know, the police know you're watching, we're watching, and it doesn't matter whether it's in Maine or whether it's in California, Illinois, Florida, black people are subject to being brutalized by police across the country, post-George Floyd. That's your phenomena. They know they're being watched, and they lie, and they cheat, and they steal, and they do whatever it takes to avoid it, even though they have body cameras.

To me, that's the phenomena, without a doubt. Now, if you go back to that video, and I do this with Roland all the time, this suspect is under control. Now, he may have resisted, but there are a lot of people that resist. Police are trained to bring down a suspect that is resistant. What was he struggling with the police for? Who knows? But it was a nonviolent act on his part. He left his car running, right? They pulled him out. They were going to arrest him for resisting arrest. The stop was because he left his car there. There's no anger management factor in policing.

It should be. But they not only escalated it, they clearly didn't de-escalate it. The two of them are struggling with this guy. They have him under control. There's absolutely no reason why they don't pick him up and put him in the car. Instead, they bang his head on the ground because they don't see us. We don't matter to them, right? You talk about what the police, you talk about the Grady cats. Let me tell you something. In New York, when I was a prosecutor, you better not make the police run.

They tell you, don't make me run. Don't make me run. He's a runner. He's a runner. And they would chase you and they take you to Belleue. Because once they caught you, if you ran, your ass was going to get beat. That used to be fundamental. I'm sorry. I was prosecuted for five years in Manhattan. I would prosecute or dismiss these cases all the time. And so you can call it training.

I think you shouldn't be entitled to have a police officer's job. That you ought to have a psychological test. Are you prone to be racist? Are you prone to escalate? All these tests psychologically that they can do. And that should determine whether you can have a gun and a badge with a flag on your sleeve of your uniform. We don't do enough of that. Those shouldn't have been there. They shouldn't be police officers.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for highlighting those points, Scott. And, you know, it's interesting in terms of what you and Robert had to say. You know, growing up in Philadelphia, I mean, you interact with law enforcement. You never know if things can go bad really quickly. And that's in any jurisdiction in the United States, particularly when it comes to black men. Yeah. So, Lauren, I want to go to you because, like I said,

these are stories that seem to happen daily. And look, you know, your colleagues highlighted that before video cameras, you know, if we go back pre-1960s, we had a lot of that, you know, a lot of civil rights workers being beaten, black and white, prior to that time. We know decades of black folks, black and brown folks, dealing with these kind of issues relating to law enforcement. What know decades of black folks, black and brown folks dealing with these kind of issues relating to law enforcement. What are your thoughts about this particular case? Well, yeah, I mean, we've been talking about this since the civil rights

era. In fact, the march on to Selma was started with the murder of Jimmy Lee, Jimmy Lee Jackson. Yeah, Jimmy Lee Jackson. It started with a police brutality incident. And Malcolm X talked about police brutality all the time. We've been talking about this incident. And Malcolm X talked about police brutality all the time. We've been talking about this forever. And it is true. I mean, it is amazing to think about the fact that more than just the fact that we've had video around for 10 years of quality video because of the advent of the cell phone camera, we've had cops do stuff with the video rolling, watching the person roll the video. I mean, with Eric Garner, Daniel Pantaleo and all those cops that were around, they saw the guy standing there filming the video, George Floyd.

I assume those cops saw the lady that was standing there that won the special Pulitzer, right? I'm sure they saw her standing there rolling the video. So what's actually going on here is that they think they're right. They think what they're doing is right. They think what they're doing is there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. So there's a bigger problem here, obviously, than having enough evidence to verify police brutality. I mean, there's a camera on every street corner now. Half of these arrests that the cops make in New York are made because they could just follow somebody with a public camera, you know, to their destination at this point.

So, obviously, the problem is not cameras. And what we see, too, in a lot of these jurisdictions is they have no problem just making the payout. Now they're just making the payouts. Oh, you want two, three million bucks? We'll just pay that. The other thing I think is interesting, too, with policing is that once the heat got on after George Floyd was murdered, you saw a lot of cops resign from police work. It was almost as if, oh, wait a minute, if I can't just do this with impunity, I don't want to be a cop anymore. I thought that was a little bit strange and a little bit telling. I actually think it's good to see people leave policing if, in fact, they think that

that's a problem. Like, if you think that it's OK what happened to George Floyd to the point where you say to yourself, well, gee, I don't want to be a cop anymore because if I've got to be held to that standard, I got to leave, then you probably don't want to be a cop anymore because if I've got to be held to that standard, I've got to leave, then you probably should not be in the police world. I mean, give me a break. Now, the guy that I'm dating is a federal police officer, and I have to say, their level of training is extremely high,

and their level of, you know, who they allow onto the force is really high. So they are not just doing psychological checks, which of course most departments do, but they have a pretty high standard for federal police officers, which is why I suspect we don't see a whole lot of federal police officers in the news for nonsense like we just saw in the video. It's usually smaller departments. It's usually younger cops. Unfortunately, the Jalen Walker incident, it seems like a bunch of younger cops were involved in that. But I mean, if that doesn't show you that there's a double standard, we as black people don't need

to be shown that there was a double standard. Obviously, there's a double standard, right? Jalen Walker was a DoorDash driver, got shot 60 times, and he's running away from the police. So he's actually decreasing the threat by running away from the police. So he's actually decreasing the threat by running away from the police. He's not running toward them. And all this stuff about he's got a gun in the car, you know, okay, whatever. It is open carry. I know we all understand that Ohio is open carry. Obviously, Ohio apparently is not open carry for African Americans. The law is apparently different. You know, when we open carry, everybody wants to bring up, oh, he had a gun in the car.

So I guess it's not open carry for black people. It's open carry for everybody else. This lunatic in Highland Park, Illinois, had a gun in the car. The video of them apprehending him, and, you know, what's crazy there, of course, is these cops enter the scene knowing that they're

going to be dealing with a person who likely murdered six people with a high-powered rifle that morning. So you enter the scene knowing that. And I totally understand cops with their gun in their hand when they're trying to apprehend somebody that they know have murdered that many people. Buffalo, same thing. They apprehended a person that they knew just murdered 10 people in a grocery store. Okay. So, so the idea that you can apprehend those people

safely without incident, and you can't do that with Jalen Walker, of course tells us we already know as black people, which is that standards are completely different and the treatment is completely different for us. We've known that for 300, 400 years. So there's no surprise there. The question is, what do we do about it? And I do think, you know, lawsuits, legality, making people pay for it, money is all great and fine, but somebody's life, somebody's life is over still at the end of the day. So somewhere in there, I do think the standards have to be high for policing because I do think we do see on the federal level that standards are very high. And it's very rare to see a federal police officer involved in this type of thing. So there we go. I mean, it's an issue that keeps going on. We keep seeing these videos.

We've got to get to a point where we find a real solution for it. Yeah, I mean, Lauren, you're right. You know, since, you know, the first enslaved Africans arrived here, you know, over 400 years ago, we've been dealing with these same issues. And you highlighted earlier in terms of, you know, impetus for a lot of, you know, fight for civil rights.

And, you know, even during the 1960s, you know, voting rights, you know, you know, voting, et cetera, passed. And you think that decades have followed President Obama's election. Some people assume we're making progress. But as black folks know in this country, that the fight for equal for fairness is ongoing. So it's not it doesn't stop at any point. It is for us as a continuation of the same unfortunate cycle of violence we saw in this video.

So what I want to do next is, you know, I want to take a commercial break. And listen, you're watching Roland Martin Unfiltered on Black Star Network. We'll be right back. Love our new Alexa. It's a Buick. Yeah, Alexa. Buick. Alexa.

It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. Coach, It's a Buick. Yeah, Alexa. Buick. Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. It's a Buick. It's an Alexa. Coach, that's a Buick. That's an Alexa. The Buick Enclave with available Alexa built in. We're all impacted by the culture, whether we know it or not.

From politics to music and entertainment, it's a huge part of our lives. And we're going to talk about it every day right here on The Culture with me, Faraji Muhammad, only on the Blackstar Network. How about sushi? I just had sushi for lunch yesterday. How about tacos? Automatic emergency braking, one of six advanced safety features standard on every 2022 Chevy Equinox. Find new technology. Find new roads. Chevrolet. Hi, I'm Dr. Jackie Hood-Martin, and I have a question for you.

Ever feel as if your life is teetering and the weight and pressure of the world is consistently on your shoulders? Well, let me tell you, living a balanced life isn't easy. Join me each Tuesday on Black Star Network for a balanced life with Dr. Jackie. We'll laugh together, cry together, pull ourselves together, and cheer each other on. So join me for new shows each Tuesday on Black Star Network, a balanced life with Dr. Jackie. I'm out. is judge math what's going on everybody it's your boy mac wiles and you are watching roland martin unfiltered welcome back let's talk a little bit about you know let's have our ted talk Welcome back. Let's talk a little bit about, you know, let's have our TED Talk, as Roland has consistently. So listen, have you ever been looking for those well-kept secret spots that serve great food? Well, Urban Eats Delivery app caters to just those types of eaters.

Joining me is DeAndre Good, the founder and CEO of Urban Eats Delivery from Houston, Texas. DeAndre, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. So let's start off by, let's talk about this, you know, how did you get started? Well, a few years back I was having a craving for some chicken wings, but I wanted something that you know they had a little bit of flavor stuff that we like you know but almost other delivery platform did it there were no nothing like it on there so what I did was I went to the other side of town of course my girlfriend at time was upset because it was late at night go all the way out there but I started thinking about like well if I had the opportunity to have this food

you know which is some of the best food in every city come from some of the smaller mom and pop type places, then of course I would have, you know, have it delivered, you know, and so that's when I ended up coming up with the idea and, you know, maybe about 2019 put it into play. Yeah, so thank you for that. So, you know, during the pandemic, there were a lot of small businesses that struggled and closed. So for the folks who are out here, you know, who are watching this and they're in Houston area, tell us a little bit of what's special about the services you provide.

Well, one thing about us is we offer our businesses higher commissions. We deliver to a wider delivery radius. Our drivers go anywhere within 60 miles. So if you see it on the app, it's deliverable to you. And also, we have the hidden gems. I mean, there are a lot of things that oftentimes, if you're not from these communities, you would not know that they existed. And that's one thing that we're bringing to the table. And, you know, it really is you want to level the playing field in the delivery aspect because we spend so much money as minorities on delivery, but we don't own any of the table. And you know, really you should want to level the playing field in the delivery aspect because we spend so much money

as minorities on delivery, but we don't own any of the platforms. So that's what the Houston area and the surrounding areas can expect from urban delivery. That's leveling the playing field. Yeah, that's a great point. So another question I want to ask before I go to the panel is, what about the response in the black community?

What kind of response, how's the support in the Houston area in terms of black people using your service? Oh, the support has been great. We have over 2,500 customers to date with little to no marketing. We've done several different panels and the biggest thing that we've heard from our customers is it's about time. You know, a lot of people, they are, we are ready for our ownership of our own platforms and things of that nature, and so the response, you know, from our community has been very, very good.

Yeah, thank you for that. So one last question. How many daily deliveries do you have? We do about 75 deliveries per day. Yeah, somewhere between 75 and 80 deliveries per day. That's great. And we're going to look maybe, you know, being on the show, we can expand that and increase that to above 100, right, to put some more money in your pocket. Of course. That's what I'm looking forward to and we're preparing for it. So let's go to our panel next.

Lauren, a question for our guest, DeAndre Good. Yeah, DeAndre, that's a really good idea. So how does it work? Is it like an app or, you know, how does it work? Is it just like a delivery app for all of those businesses, and that's just how you hook everybody up and connect everybody? The way it works is, yes, it is an app. It's on both platforms, iOS and Android.

So you would download the app. And then what you would do if, you know, you see a business that you like, you know, whether it's a home-based business, food truck, or brick and mortar, or now we've actually just started to deliver consumer goods, just like clothes and things of that nature, you know, you would place that order. It would go to the vendor. Once the vendor accepts it, it will go to the nearest driver to that vendor. My driver will go pick it up and deliver it to you.

Straightforward, simple process. All right. Next, I want to... Scott, you have a question? Houston, right? Are you networking, or is your growth model to go to other urban centers like Washington, D.C.? Yes, yes, it is. We just finished the generator accelerator program.

You know, a lot of people don't know what these programs are, but, you know, we just finished that accelerator program. And so that's what our next step is, you know, just scaling the business, you know, doing those pitch competitions and having these interviews with these VCs so that we can, you know, raise the funds in order to scale and grow the business and take it nationwide. Yeah, that's awesome. Good luck with it. Thank you. So, Robert, do you have a question for our guest? Yeah, so, you know, like many African Americans, I grew up in kind of struggling conditions in the hood and then kind of ascended into the middle class, but we still have an attachment to the things from where we came from.

So because you were delivering food from, as you said, communities may not be the safest to drive into, particularly at certain times of night. Are there other hood goods that you will be expanding out to deliver? Every once in a while, I might need a Swisher Sweet at 2 o'clock in the morning. Will there be any option for things like that, a plate out of somebody's kitchen? Are there growth models where you can get other things I don't really feel like driving down to the squats to get during certain times of the day? Yes. Currently, we do

actually have home-based businesses on the app. Also, we pivoted into the delivery of all consumer goods. Whether it be these boutiques. I know a lot of times in my neighborhood, I see the ladies dropping off their tea, things of that nature, you know,

so we have those type of vendors on our app. So, you know, the goal is to... I thought we were closing, but... Excuse me? You know, the goal is to be like a black Amazon, pretty much. Mm-hmm. One last question, DeAndre, in terms of, you know, how do you become a driver? Well, what a driver does is you go onto our website, www.urbaneastwithazdelivery.com,

and then there's a section on there that will say, you know, to become a driver. All they will do is fill out the information. It will go to us. We will do the background check, and they're good to go. So what we need folks to do who are watching this program right now, we need to support Urban Eats Delivery Service in Houston, Texas, so he can expand nationwide, like McDonald's. And, you know, so I need folks to go and download that app.

He said it's available via major platforms. So we want to make sure he has, we get him above 100 at a minimum. So all the folks out there, if you can do that, we really appreciate it on behalf of the Roland Martin show. And DeAndre, good. Listen, wish you all the best in your business and keep doing what you're doing. Thank you.

All right. So as we finish up here a little, I want to first remember the first black secretary of the United States Army has died. Clifford Alexander Jr. died Sunday at his home in Manhattan after suffering from suffering a heart failure. He was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. Alexander played an important role in paving the way for blacks in the military. Alexander was one of the leading voices during the Civil Rights Movement, using his role to enforce policies that would achieve his goals, that the government could do much to

alleviate racial and economic inequality. During his time as secretary, he worked to transition the army into a volunteer workforce and provide opportunities for minorities and women to advance in the army. When he resigned from his secretary position, he provided more opportunities for minorities to advance in becoming generals in the US military. Alexander survived by his wife and two children. He was 88 years old. Rest in peace.

So in closing, I want to shout out to Roland for the opportunity to be a guest tonight. I hope you enjoyed the show. That's it from here at Roland Martin Unfiltered. I'm Dr. Larry J. Walker, sitting in for Roland. Be sure to download the Black Star Network app. And if you become, you know, you've got iPhone, Apple Plus, et cetera. And if you'd like to become the Bring the Funk, a member of the Bring the Funk fan club, here's when you can And the address is PO Box 57196, Washington, D.C., 20037-0196. That's PO Box 57196, Washington, D.C., 20037-0196.

I'm Dr. Walker signing off. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening..