December 30, 2024 • 28 mins
Atlanta based news reporter and journalist joins today's episode with Hosts Ramses Ja and Q Ward to discuss the major news stories from this past weekend.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Here at the Black Information Network, we know how important
it is for you to start your week off energized, engaged,
and enlightened. There are always major stories that break over
the weekend, and we feel you should know about the
ones we are talking about today, So stay tuned for
our weekend recap featuring Black Information Network News anchor Katie Gray.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
This is the.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Black Information Network Daily Podcast. I'm your host ramses Jah
and I am your host q Ward. All right, Katie Gray,
welcome back to the show. It's been a long time.
How have you been, What have you been up to?
What's the latest?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Great?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I was gonna say, I feel like the last couple
of months have just been a whirldwin. I can't remember
the last time we sat down. I know it was
definitely before the holidays came.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Long before, long before. Well, it's good to have you
back on the show. And you know, before we get started,
I think it's important for us to acknowledge the passing
of Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
I think that.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I won't go into any detail in terms of like
my thoughts because I do have an episode up already,
but I wanted to give really the both of you
a chance to kind of share what you know and
share your thoughts, just because this is kind of a
national treasure, a moment in our history that has passed.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
So I'm Katie you first, of course, I.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Mean, I'm glad that you took the time to kind
of mention it because I think that you're right, it's
one of those things and one of those moments that
historically kind of unites all of us, I mean across
the aisle, regardless of any type of political affiliation. I
mean a landmark and the impact that he's had on
the nation, and I mean it's so sad to note
(01:45):
of his passing and for us to have to acknowledge that,
but also taking the moment and the opportunity to realize
the impact that he had and I mean his lasting legacy.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Politically, we know he was an increase figure. But for me,
and I think for you as well, the thing that's
most enduring about him is that he was a good person.
He's going to be remembered as a decent man, and
that's something that seems to be absent in the political
arena now. There used to be a floor, a standard
(02:21):
that even if we did not align politically, even if
we were polar opposites in the political space that to
be the president of the United States, at least in
our lifetime, we had to be able to respect the
office that you held and the person that you are.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Sure sure, well you're I think you're both right. It's
definitely He's definitely had his own impact. Even though he
was a four year president. There was some external circumstances
surrounding his presidency that I believe led to him, you know,
simply being a four four year president instead of a
two term president. But to your point, Q, I think
(02:56):
that he was absolutely a decent human being right to
the very end, made it to one hundred years old.
And you know, I think that this further illustrates your
point that you know, that's that's kind of we're looking
at the end of an era where you know, decency
and all that sort of stuff that you would think
(03:17):
a person that you would hold that sort of to
that sort of standard would still matter. And I think
in a lot of ways you might be right that
we don't really look at that as a requirement really anymore.
It's more about whose team are you on rather than
the quality of the candidate, which is how such flawed
candidates often make it to the top of the ticket,
and indeed we're staring down the barrel of a very
(03:40):
troubling administration, even from Republicans. But you know, like I said,
the full you know, my full thoughts are up on
the Black Information Network Daily podcast.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
You're welcome to check those out. Let's move to the news.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
First up, this from CBS News and Alabama woman says
she was raped by Jay Z and Sean Diddy homes
when she was thirteen, and she is now allowed to
proceed with her case anonymously for now in her lawsuit
against the rap Mobiles, a New York federal judge ruled
on Thursday. In her written order, US District Judge and
(04:15):
Alisa Torres said the woman can proceed anonymously at this
stage in the litigation, but she may be required to
reveal her identity at a later date if the case proceeds.
That would allow defense lawyers to collect facts necessary to
prepare for trial. Torres also cited substantial interest from the public.
Jay Z has said in a statement that Buzzby is
(04:36):
trying to blackmail him to settle the Alabama woman's allegations.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Buzzby, of course being this woman's lawyer, so I know
that this is.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Something that has a lot of people talking, you know,
talk to us about your thoughts and maybe what you've
been hearing in your.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Circles, Katie.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
I mean, I just feel like this is one of
those cases that, of course, you know, it's still unfolding,
so there's still so much that I am really curious
to kind of watch once it kind of really airs
out more into the courtroom. But I do think it's
really interesting that they have allowed the woman to remain anonymous,
(05:15):
just because from a lot of the cases that we've
seen in the past, I mean, unfortunately, it's one of
those things that when someone does come forward, especially when
we do have really big names involved, there are so
many times where the accuser in cases of rape or
sexual assault honestly ends up it honestly ends up being
(05:39):
in a predicament where they end up really being targeted
on their reputation and their character being brought into question
and to work a part when you know, really recognizing
that this is something that is a difficult subject that
I can imagine for anyone to come forward with, you know,
especially when you do have so much on so much
(06:00):
that is going to make national and even in some
cases international headlines.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yeah, it's definitely something that I think that you know,
at least the defense, you know, Jay Z's people, that's
that's got to be a blow for that side, just
because it's harder to figure things out and it's harder
to fight back against the public scrutiny. But you know,
I know that this is something you and I have
talked about a lot to.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Q So, Yeah, Rams, we discussed this before. The allegations
in this case are pretty disgusting, and anyone found guilty
of having done what he's being accused of.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
In this case should.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Go to jail for a long time, get out of jail,
and go back to jail, like it should be the
worst possible outcome for someone. But we also talked about
there being no consequence for allegations like this when they're baseless,
you know, So I think that's something that needs to
be taken into account. With regards to this person being
able to remain anonymous, I think it's in their best
(06:59):
interest just for public safety, right. People tend to get
very polarized in cases like this, especially when it's a
big celebrity being accused and for this woman to have
to walk around with people being angry at her that
never met her because she accused their favorite rapper of
doing something really really disgusting to her. I think, while
they're still trying to figure things out, it would suck
(07:21):
for this lady to become a public figure and this
case never even make it to trial and she have
to walk around and defend herself from strangers who she
doesn't even know have a problem with her because she
accused someone that they follow or that they like, of
something really really egregious like this. So, I you know,
it's it's a slippery slope, man. It's hard for accusers
(07:43):
and actual victims when people come forward with things like
this and they aren't true. But for those that come forward,
they have to know that it's a safe thing for
them to do.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Sure, sure, I like your point on her being able
to fade back into obscurity, but the damage of an
accusation like this tends to stick. I want to add
one other thing there that I'm sure you both would
agree with, which is that also, if for some reason
(08:15):
what she's saying is not factual, it also makes it
harder for actual victims based on these circumstances and based
on things that might come out in the future to
be believed, because when people say things, they cry wolf effectively,
(08:36):
when they cry wolf, you know, it's harder for judges
to take cautions like this in order to provide some
additional protection. It's harder for you know, people to make
heads or tails of it. It's harder for victims in
the future to you know, stop predators, to stop abuse,
to stop you know, those sorts of things from happening
(08:57):
to them and other people. And so this woman is lying,
she could potentially be ruined and ruining a lot of
stuff for a lot of people, not knowingly, like just
the ripple effect of a lie. And so again, if
she's telling the truth, then you know, everything should fall
where it should fall. But if she's if she's lying,
that's a dangerous game to play because it affects more
(09:20):
than just her. So, you know, in terms of her
personally fading back to obscurity, she absolutely will, but the
impact of that lie will linger.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Next up this from Raw's story.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
The day before his inauguration, President elect Donald Trump will
reportedly be attending an inter faith prayer service in Washington,
d C. As wealthy as supporters can also attend if
they write or solicit a big enough check. That's according
to a recent report in Religion News Service, when published
promotional material from Trump's inaugural committee showing a list of
(09:53):
different tiers of benefits depending on how much a donor gives.
On January eighteenth, donors can get tickets to a Make
America Great Again victory rally, a cabinet reception, and a
dinner with Vice President elect jd.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Vance.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
And on January nineteenth, donors who give one hundred thousand
dollars or raise two hundred thousand dollars can get two
tickets to the One America One Light Sunday service. RNs
reporter Jack Jenkins described it as a pay to prey event.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
So this this feels a little on brand your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Katie, I'm glad that you said that that was the
exact same thing I was going to comment on, is
that it isn't surprising. I mean, regardless over whether anyone
agrees that it's right or wrong. I mean, one of
the biggest things that I've heard repeatedly from many people
(10:45):
who you know, do you support him, and do they
have voted for him? You know, they love the fact
that he's a businessman and he always figures out a
way to make a dime. And I mean, this doesn't
seem to be any as you mentioned, off brand by
any means, So yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
I get the feeling.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Well, first off, I'll say, we've covered lots of stories
like this, and I get the feeling we're going to
cover many more stories like this where he's fundraising or
mismanaging funds that he did raise or something like that.
And so I doubt there's really too much more time
we need to spend on this story.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So well, more on.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
This is your week in Recap with today's guest Black
Information Network News anchor Katie Gray.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
All Right. This from Reason dot Com.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
A sixteen year old teenager had his hands raised when
he was fatally shot by police during an unauthorized no
knock drug rate in Mobile, Alabama, last year, according to
a civil rights lawsuit filed by his mother in federal
court earlier this month. The lawsuit against the City of
Mobile and several anonymous Mobile police officer says Randall Adjuism,
came out of his room holding a gun when he
(12:04):
heard someone break down the front door of the house.
Where he lived with his mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters.
When he realized the intruders were police, he put his
hands in the air and stepped back, but a mobile
Police Department SWAT officer shot him four times.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
The complaint is replete with revelations from our pre suit investigation,
civil rights attorney representing Aegism's mother said in a press
release accompanying the suit. Goes on to say, perhaps none
more repulsive than the fact that MPD body worn camera
video of the shooting clearly shows Randal began to retreat
after realizing the intruders into his family home were members
(12:41):
of the police force, when he was repeatedly shot and
killed in cold blood. And after he was shot, the
suit says, police left Adjism to bleed out on the
floor for four minutes before half heartedly rendering medical aid.
So this one is a little disturbing, you know, talk
to us about this on when we first came across.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Okay, well, it is disturbing, but it's not a story
that we're all not very familiar with, right. You know,
there have been so many reports and there's been so
many cases, especially when it comes to swat team, whether
(13:22):
it is authorized or in this case, not authorized. You know,
there's so many there's so many issues where not only
has there been cases where you do have victims, but
also even where officers have been injured in this because
there is this I mean, even looking at the details
(13:43):
of the report, I mean, the journalists who covered it
did a really phenomenal job with the amount of detail
that they added, even adding a link to some of
the body cam I mean, the it seems pretty irrefutable
that he was surrendering. And even when we kind of
talk about even the aspects about obviously there's so much
(14:04):
commentary and there's so many stories about the Second Amendment,
and it is long as from the perspective of this
teenage kid who was living in a home with his
family members, primarily, like it mentioned, his mom, his sister,
I think even an aunt. All he heard is commotion
and someone bursting down the front door and sounds like
he grabbed a weapon, you know, in defense. The moment
(14:27):
that he realized, according to the reports and the breakdown
of what happened, the second he realized that it was
you know, law enforcement, he put down the weapon and
put his hands up, and at that moment is when
he was fired, he was shot, and then even the
lack of emergency services. Apparently there's some commentary that in
(14:48):
the back of the video you can hear another officer
mentioned to the officer who fired the shots, what.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Do we do now?
Speaker 3 (14:57):
And so it's you know, even the sense of, like,
you know that clearly at this point, this person, this individual,
this teenager, is not a threat. Your first response isn't
to immediately, you know, try to give them aid, but
to try to decide what you want, Like it just
seems so dehumanizing. And then even the fact that I
(15:20):
think within under an hour, I think it's in fifty minutes,
he didn't receive any type of medical there's it may
now be arguable that if he had received immediate attention,
his life might have been saved. So, you know, the
other mention too that I thought was really eye opening
about this story is that they were looking for allegedly
(15:42):
his sibling, his older brother from marijuana who didn't even
live in the house. So it's just there's so many
things about this case that just seems really disturbing, and
not just because sadly a teenager lost his life, but
even the out where it brings into question power and
(16:03):
those dynamics, and really where is our humanity when it
comes to does this teenager, even if he had been
the one that they were looking for, deserve to lose
his life over marijuana when it's legalized in many states
at this point.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
You know, yeah, I know you're going to have some
thoughts on this too. Q.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
You know, there's not a group that any of us
belong to, you know, be that our religious group, our ethnicity, gender,
or just social groups that we're a part of that
are without flaw, except all of our law enforcement agencies
would have us believe that they have no members of
their organization that are flawed people, that they never make
(16:46):
a mistake, and that everything they do is just them
carrying out their job.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Right.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
So, in cases like this and many others, because there's
either zero accountability or very very little in the way
of consequence for officers who behave in this way and
who act this way, it will continue to happen. If
the worst case scenario is that I'll just lose my
job and perhaps I can get another one, and if
(17:12):
I do get accused of a crime and even convicted
of a crime, my sentencing is going to be so
light that it doesn't have a drastic impact on the
rest of my life. Then what's to stop someone who
just doesn't like black people from becoming a police officer
and being able to kill black people with impunity.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Right.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
So, officers in this militarized version of police that we
have now, especially SWAT officers, trained for the worst case scenario. Ironically,
for some of them, the worst case scenario never happens.
So thousands of rounds in the gun range and breaking
down doors and running through courses and learning all these
tactics and special weapons and everything that they never get
(17:50):
to use until one day they get the call and
there's a black man with a gun and they finally,
after they've been waiting their whole career to do this,
they find only get to get that off. Of course,
the next thing they're going to ask is, Okay, so
what do.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
We do now? Wow?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
We tend to cover stories like this in depth on
Civic Cipher, and there's just been a lot of this
sort of stuff that's been happening lately in that I
don't know that we'll get to this because we leave.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
So much on the cutting room floor.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
In a manner of speaking, when we record that show,
but I'm glad we've got to at least talk about
it here. This, of course, is one of those stories
that we're going to continue to follow and you know,
as it reaches its conclusion, will be will be all
over it. I'm not just here on this show, but
the entirety of the Black Information Network.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
For our final story today, this comes from the Hill.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
President elect Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the
deadline for a potential TikTok ban, which is slated for
the day before his inauguration. The Court has agreed to
hear TikTok's challenge to the potential ban on an expedited schedule,
but Trump told the justices that delaying the law until
he returns to the White House could obviate the need
for the court to weigh in.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal making expertise, the
electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution
to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns,
wrote d John Sawyer, one of Trump's personal appellate attorneys.
So yeah, this is interesting and interesting development. I don't
(19:28):
know if you're a big TikToker or not, but we
have we have some some followers on our on our
civic cipher TikTok, so that's a platform that has some
you know, so this is something that is a particular
interest at least to me and Q over here, what
are your thoughts getting.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
I think the key word that you've mentioned is definitely
interesting because you know this, it is an interesting move
for it to be a priority for Trump to come
out on because I will say that I'm very curious
over more of the incentives on his part, other than
the fact that that was part of the thing that
(20:08):
he did mention on the campaign trail about, you know,
people to vote for him if they wanted him to
save TikTok, because he had allegedly kind of switched his
stants on the platform not necessarily being banned and maybe
renegotiating whatever those terms were going to be, and so
a lot of people maybe if they haven't kept up
(20:30):
to date, it's really about the platform changing its parent
company that does have Chinese ties. But it was really
interesting because different debates that I've seen, even over TikTok,
it really does kind of bring into question even more
with you know, there are so many state representatives that
(20:51):
you know across both sides that seem very adamant on
wanting a lot more restrictions and bands on TikTok when
when you really look, I mean it as a platform
doesn't necessarily trade or save user information any differently than
any of the other social platforms that we use. So
it almost does kind of it does kind of eye
(21:14):
open where you know, is it okay when we're talking
about the conversation on access to data that technically, by
getting on the platform, we're volunteering, you know, necessarily is
that information any less dangerous than in conglomerates that are
in the US, Like, just because someone is very powerful here,
they're still collecting that the amount of data and actually
(21:35):
collect even more. I mean, as far as I know,
I think Google, Google's practices even actually kind of expand
a lot more than TikTok ever has.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, so yeah your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
I think the guy is the political the political equal
of an arsonist firefighter, right like, starts the fire going,
then has somebody call him so he can put it
out and be the hero. Right Like, I'm the soul
singularly me, I'm the sole person who's most qualified to
(22:11):
fix everything that's wrong with TikTok and America and Jesus
and Bibles and shoes and watches and every like, everything
that's wrong. He's the single person qualified to fix it everything,
And he spent his entire political career, you know, jumped
(22:31):
off of a very very racist, white supremacist platform from
the jump, and since that moment, has presented everything that
he thinks is wrong with us, as in some cases
prevented solutions to the problems that he points out, so
he can be the one that comes to save the day.
And it's it's very cool following Katie because she makes
(22:53):
all the best points, so just follow her leader. But
she's right, it's not like TikTok is more nefarious than
every other tech company that we are, and it's not
essentially in business with ourselves.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
And it's not like those companies haven't had data leaks themselves.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
So if China, China's probably already got everything they need
on us. But go ahead, I'm saying, oh no, no,
I mean that's the thing that they're remember.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
There's actually no evidence to show that that information has
gone to China and that China's doing anything to it.
There's no evidence that has backed that.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Claim, So I think that makes you even more right.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
Yeah, and Katie's right. They're going to use the thought
that maybe it might happen one day to scare us
into banning this company so that it can be available
for sale so they can buy it. It's just again,
it would be funny if it wasn't so scary because
it's so real, man, right in front of our faces, corruption,
and we seem to have no problem with it.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Do you know?
Speaker 1 (23:52):
I When I'm listening to the both of you talk,
I'm reminded of a story that Dave Chappelle told. He
told a story that he read from a book.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
I believe the book was called Pimp. Okay, follow me,
it's about to get weird.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
No, I know this story.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
So in the story, there's a pimp and he's basically
saying how he can get like sort of mind control
over a woman that works for him. And you'd have
to watch Dave shift tell retail the story in order
to get all the particulars in the details. But the
(24:34):
shortened version of it, what I remember of it is
that what happens is he takes like an extension chord
or something like this, and then he beats this woman,
and after he's done beating her, he draws her a
bath and then takes care of all of her wounds,
(24:57):
and he's very tender with her, and he does such
a good job taking care of her that she indeed
forgets that he is the one that beat her in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
And that happens to jibe.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
The reason why that story stood out in my mind
is because I recall encountering a study in college.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
When I was in college.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
It was a psychology study and it was based on dogs.
But the idea was to determine how was loyalty built,
how is it best built? And in this experiment that
I learned about in college, they took three groups of puppies, right,
and they had a control group that had no stimulus,
(25:44):
no involvement, nothing like that. They were fed just normal control.
Then they had a group of puppies that were abused
and fed and cared for. But they were abused, they
were kicked or whatever else, but they were fed and
cared for as well.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
And then they had a group that was just abused.
That's it.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
They got fed and they got abused, and that's it,
but they weren't cared for. And as the dogs grew,
they wanted to figure out which one, which group was
the most loyal, and everyone in class thought, okay, well,
the dogs that were always cared for, always pet like,
kind of the control group, those were the ones that
were the most loyal. And then there were a few
(26:27):
that said no, the dogs that were kicked and abused,
they were fear based, so they had to be the
most loyal. As it turns out, when you mix abuse
with like caretaking, it makes you the most loyal of
all right, And this is of course dogs and this
you know, but this gives some insight into basic psychology
(26:49):
and why that story Dave Chappelle told was so memorable
to me. So to your point, Q, when you look
at Donald Trump being the arson and the firefighter, arsonist
and the firefighter, he's the person that creates the problem
or allows the problem to persist, or otherwise exacerbates the
problem or amplifies it to his base and then comes
(27:10):
comes from behind and puts the fire out, so to speak.
Then you know it's it's just a masterful play on
human psychology on a grand national stage. And you know,
those of us that don't fall for it can see
through it. But those that fall for it, it's almost
(27:30):
like basic human psychology, not unlike some of the other
world leaders that we've seen in the past who have
tricked entire nations into doing immoral things or adopting an
im moral posture, or otherwise committing atrocious acts on their
fellow countrymen or you know, countries around the world. And
(27:53):
so it's scary to know that that that's where we are.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Again.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
This is not I'm not here to break down this
side college of it, but I think your point is
well made. Both of your points are well made, and
we're just going to see what happens with TikTok. But
for now we'll leave it right there, and thank you,
as always for your time and your insight. Once again,
today's guest is Black Information Network news anchor Katie Gray.
This has been a production of the Black Information Network.
(28:19):
Today's show is produced by Chris Thompson. Have some thoughts
you'd like to share, use the red microphone talkback feature
on the iHeartRadio app. While you're there, be sure to
hit subscribe and download all of our episodes.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
I'm your host.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Ramsey's jaw On all social media and join us tomorrow
as we share our news with our voice from our
perspective right here on the Black Information Network Daily podcast
Here at the Black Information Network, we know how important
it is for you to start your week off energized, engaged,
and enlightened. There are always major stories that break over
the weekend, and we feel you should know about the
ones we are talking about today, So stay tuned for
our weekend recap featuring Black Information Network News anchor Katie Gray.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
This is the.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Black Information Network Daily Podcast. I'm your host ramses Jah
and I am your host q Ward. All right, Katie Gray,
welcome back to the show. It's been a long time.
How have you been, What have you been up to?
What's the latest?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Great?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I was gonna say, I feel like the last couple
of months have just been a whirldwin. I can't remember
the last time we sat down. I know it was
definitely before the holidays came.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Long before, long before. Well, it's good to have you
back on the show. And you know, before we get started,
I think it's important for us to acknowledge the passing
of Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
I think that.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I won't go into any detail in terms of like
my thoughts because I do have an episode up already,
but I wanted to give really the both of you
a chance to kind of share what you know and
share your thoughts, just because this is kind of a
national treasure, a moment in our history that has passed.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
So I'm Katie you first, of course, I.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Mean, I'm glad that you took the time to kind
of mention it because I think that you're right, it's
one of those things and one of those moments that
historically kind of unites all of us, I mean across
the aisle, regardless of any type of political affiliation. I
mean a landmark and the impact that he's had on
the nation, and I mean it's so sad to note
(01:45):
of his passing and for us to have to acknowledge that,
but also taking the moment and the opportunity to realize
the impact that he had and I mean his lasting legacy.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Politically, we know he was an increase figure. But for me,
and I think for you as well, the thing that's
most enduring about him is that he was a good person.
He's going to be remembered as a decent man, and
that's something that seems to be absent in the political
arena now. There used to be a floor, a standard
(02:21):
that even if we did not align politically, even if
we were polar opposites in the political space that to
be the president of the United States, at least in
our lifetime, we had to be able to respect the
office that you held and the person that you are.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Sure sure, well you're I think you're both right. It's
definitely He's definitely had his own impact. Even though he
was a four year president. There was some external circumstances
surrounding his presidency that I believe led to him, you know,
simply being a four four year president instead of a
two term president. But to your point, Q, I think
(02:56):
that he was absolutely a decent human being right to
the very end, made it to one hundred years old.
And you know, I think that this further illustrates your
point that you know, that's that's kind of we're looking
at the end of an era where you know, decency
and all that sort of stuff that you would think
(03:17):
a person that you would hold that sort of to
that sort of standard would still matter. And I think
in a lot of ways you might be right that
we don't really look at that as a requirement really anymore.
It's more about whose team are you on rather than
the quality of the candidate, which is how such flawed
candidates often make it to the top of the ticket,
and indeed we're staring down the barrel of a very
(03:40):
troubling administration, even from Republicans. But you know, like I said,
the full you know, my full thoughts are up on
the Black Information Network Daily podcast.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
You're welcome to check those out. Let's move to the news.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
First up, this from CBS News and Alabama woman says
she was raped by Jay Z and Sean Diddy homes
when she was thirteen, and she is now allowed to
proceed with her case anonymously for now in her lawsuit
against the rap Mobiles, a New York federal judge ruled
on Thursday. In her written order, US District Judge and
(04:15):
Alisa Torres said the woman can proceed anonymously at this
stage in the litigation, but she may be required to
reveal her identity at a later date if the case proceeds.
That would allow defense lawyers to collect facts necessary to
prepare for trial. Torres also cited substantial interest from the public.
Jay Z has said in a statement that Buzzby is
(04:36):
trying to blackmail him to settle the Alabama woman's allegations.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Buzzby, of course being this woman's lawyer, so I know
that this is.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Something that has a lot of people talking, you know,
talk to us about your thoughts and maybe what you've
been hearing in your.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Circles, Katie.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
I mean, I just feel like this is one of
those cases that, of course, you know, it's still unfolding,
so there's still so much that I am really curious
to kind of watch once it kind of really airs
out more into the courtroom. But I do think it's
really interesting that they have allowed the woman to remain anonymous,
(05:15):
just because from a lot of the cases that we've
seen in the past, I mean, unfortunately, it's one of
those things that when someone does come forward, especially when
we do have really big names involved, there are so
many times where the accuser in cases of rape or
sexual assault honestly ends up it honestly ends up being
(05:39):
in a predicament where they end up really being targeted
on their reputation and their character being brought into question
and to work a part when you know, really recognizing
that this is something that is a difficult subject that
I can imagine for anyone to come forward with, you know,
especially when you do have so much on so much
(06:00):
that is going to make national and even in some
cases international headlines.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yeah, it's definitely something that I think that you know,
at least the defense, you know, Jay Z's people, that's
that's got to be a blow for that side, just
because it's harder to figure things out and it's harder
to fight back against the public scrutiny. But you know,
I know that this is something you and I have
talked about a lot to.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Q So, Yeah, Rams, we discussed this before. The allegations
in this case are pretty disgusting, and anyone found guilty
of having done what he's being accused of.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
In this case should.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Go to jail for a long time, get out of jail,
and go back to jail, like it should be the
worst possible outcome for someone. But we also talked about
there being no consequence for allegations like this when they're baseless,
you know, So I think that's something that needs to
be taken into account. With regards to this person being
able to remain anonymous, I think it's in their best
(06:59):
interest just for public safety, right. People tend to get
very polarized in cases like this, especially when it's a
big celebrity being accused and for this woman to have
to walk around with people being angry at her that
never met her because she accused their favorite rapper of
doing something really really disgusting to her. I think, while
they're still trying to figure things out, it would suck
(07:21):
for this lady to become a public figure and this
case never even make it to trial and she have
to walk around and defend herself from strangers who she
doesn't even know have a problem with her because she
accused someone that they follow or that they like, of
something really really egregious like this. So, I you know,
it's it's a slippery slope, man. It's hard for accusers
(07:43):
and actual victims when people come forward with things like
this and they aren't true. But for those that come forward,
they have to know that it's a safe thing for
them to do.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Sure, sure, I like your point on her being able
to fade back into obscurity, but the damage of an
accusation like this tends to stick. I want to add
one other thing there that I'm sure you both would
agree with, which is that also, if for some reason
(08:15):
what she's saying is not factual, it also makes it
harder for actual victims based on these circumstances and based
on things that might come out in the future to
be believed, because when people say things, they cry wolf effectively,
(08:36):
when they cry wolf, you know, it's harder for judges
to take cautions like this in order to provide some
additional protection. It's harder for you know, people to make
heads or tails of it. It's harder for victims in
the future to you know, stop predators, to stop abuse,
to stop you know, those sorts of things from happening
(08:57):
to them and other people. And so this woman is lying,
she could potentially be ruined and ruining a lot of
stuff for a lot of people, not knowingly, like just
the ripple effect of a lie. And so again, if
she's telling the truth, then you know, everything should fall
where it should fall. But if she's if she's lying,
that's a dangerous game to play because it affects more
(09:20):
than just her. So, you know, in terms of her
personally fading back to obscurity, she absolutely will, but the
impact of that lie will linger.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Next up this from Raw's story.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
The day before his inauguration, President elect Donald Trump will
reportedly be attending an inter faith prayer service in Washington,
d C. As wealthy as supporters can also attend if
they write or solicit a big enough check. That's according
to a recent report in Religion News Service, when published
promotional material from Trump's inaugural committee showing a list of
(09:53):
different tiers of benefits depending on how much a donor gives.
On January eighteenth, donors can get tickets to a Make
America Great Again victory rally, a cabinet reception, and a
dinner with Vice President elect jd.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Vance.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
And on January nineteenth, donors who give one hundred thousand
dollars or raise two hundred thousand dollars can get two
tickets to the One America One Light Sunday service. RNs
reporter Jack Jenkins described it as a pay to prey event.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
So this this feels a little on brand your thoughts.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Katie, I'm glad that you said that that was the
exact same thing I was going to comment on, is
that it isn't surprising. I mean, regardless over whether anyone
agrees that it's right or wrong. I mean, one of
the biggest things that I've heard repeatedly from many people
(10:45):
who you know, do you support him, and do they
have voted for him? You know, they love the fact
that he's a businessman and he always figures out a
way to make a dime. And I mean, this doesn't
seem to be any as you mentioned, off brand by
any means, So yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
I get the feeling.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Well, first off, I'll say, we've covered lots of stories
like this, and I get the feeling we're going to
cover many more stories like this where he's fundraising or
mismanaging funds that he did raise or something like that.
And so I doubt there's really too much more time
we need to spend on this story.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So well, more on.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
This is your week in Recap with today's guest Black
Information Network News anchor Katie Gray.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
All Right. This from Reason dot Com.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
A sixteen year old teenager had his hands raised when
he was fatally shot by police during an unauthorized no
knock drug rate in Mobile, Alabama, last year, according to
a civil rights lawsuit filed by his mother in federal
court earlier this month. The lawsuit against the City of
Mobile and several anonymous Mobile police officer says Randall Adjuism,
came out of his room holding a gun when he
(12:04):
heard someone break down the front door of the house.
Where he lived with his mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters.
When he realized the intruders were police, he put his
hands in the air and stepped back, but a mobile
Police Department SWAT officer shot him four times.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
The complaint is replete with revelations from our pre suit investigation,
civil rights attorney representing Aegism's mother said in a press
release accompanying the suit. Goes on to say, perhaps none
more repulsive than the fact that MPD body worn camera
video of the shooting clearly shows Randal began to retreat
after realizing the intruders into his family home were members
(12:41):
of the police force, when he was repeatedly shot and
killed in cold blood. And after he was shot, the
suit says, police left Adjism to bleed out on the
floor for four minutes before half heartedly rendering medical aid.
So this one is a little disturbing, you know, talk
to us about this on when we first came across.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Okay, well, it is disturbing, but it's not a story
that we're all not very familiar with, right. You know,
there have been so many reports and there's been so
many cases, especially when it comes to swat team, whether
(13:22):
it is authorized or in this case, not authorized. You know,
there's so many there's so many issues where not only
has there been cases where you do have victims, but
also even where officers have been injured in this because
there is this I mean, even looking at the details
(13:43):
of the report, I mean, the journalists who covered it
did a really phenomenal job with the amount of detail
that they added, even adding a link to some of
the body cam I mean, the it seems pretty irrefutable
that he was surrendering. And even when we kind of
talk about even the aspects about obviously there's so much
(14:04):
commentary and there's so many stories about the Second Amendment,
and it is long as from the perspective of this
teenage kid who was living in a home with his
family members, primarily, like it mentioned, his mom, his sister,
I think even an aunt. All he heard is commotion
and someone bursting down the front door and sounds like
he grabbed a weapon, you know, in defense. The moment
(14:27):
that he realized, according to the reports and the breakdown
of what happened, the second he realized that it was
you know, law enforcement, he put down the weapon and
put his hands up, and at that moment is when
he was fired, he was shot, and then even the
lack of emergency services. Apparently there's some commentary that in
(14:48):
the back of the video you can hear another officer
mentioned to the officer who fired the shots, what.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Do we do now?
Speaker 3 (14:57):
And so it's you know, even the sense of, like,
you know that clearly at this point, this person, this individual,
this teenager, is not a threat. Your first response isn't
to immediately, you know, try to give them aid, but
to try to decide what you want, Like it just
seems so dehumanizing. And then even the fact that I
(15:20):
think within under an hour, I think it's in fifty minutes,
he didn't receive any type of medical there's it may
now be arguable that if he had received immediate attention,
his life might have been saved. So, you know, the
other mention too that I thought was really eye opening
about this story is that they were looking for allegedly
(15:42):
his sibling, his older brother from marijuana who didn't even
live in the house. So it's just there's so many
things about this case that just seems really disturbing, and
not just because sadly a teenager lost his life, but
even the out where it brings into question power and
(16:03):
those dynamics, and really where is our humanity when it
comes to does this teenager, even if he had been
the one that they were looking for, deserve to lose
his life over marijuana when it's legalized in many states
at this point.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
You know, yeah, I know you're going to have some
thoughts on this too. Q.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
You know, there's not a group that any of us
belong to, you know, be that our religious group, our ethnicity, gender,
or just social groups that we're a part of that
are without flaw, except all of our law enforcement agencies
would have us believe that they have no members of
their organization that are flawed people, that they never make
(16:46):
a mistake, and that everything they do is just them
carrying out their job.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Right.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
So, in cases like this and many others, because there's
either zero accountability or very very little in the way
of consequence for officers who behave in this way and
who act this way, it will continue to happen. If
the worst case scenario is that I'll just lose my
job and perhaps I can get another one, and if
(17:12):
I do get accused of a crime and even convicted
of a crime, my sentencing is going to be so
light that it doesn't have a drastic impact on the
rest of my life. Then what's to stop someone who
just doesn't like black people from becoming a police officer
and being able to kill black people with impunity.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Right.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
So, officers in this militarized version of police that we
have now, especially SWAT officers, trained for the worst case scenario. Ironically,
for some of them, the worst case scenario never happens.
So thousands of rounds in the gun range and breaking
down doors and running through courses and learning all these
tactics and special weapons and everything that they never get
(17:50):
to use until one day they get the call and
there's a black man with a gun and they finally,
after they've been waiting their whole career to do this,
they find only get to get that off. Of course,
the next thing they're going to ask is, Okay, so
what do.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
We do now? Wow?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
We tend to cover stories like this in depth on
Civic Cipher, and there's just been a lot of this
sort of stuff that's been happening lately in that I
don't know that we'll get to this because we leave.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
So much on the cutting room floor.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
In a manner of speaking, when we record that show,
but I'm glad we've got to at least talk about
it here. This, of course, is one of those stories
that we're going to continue to follow and you know,
as it reaches its conclusion, will be will be all
over it. I'm not just here on this show, but
the entirety of the Black Information Network.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
For our final story today, this comes from the Hill.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
President elect Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the
deadline for a potential TikTok ban, which is slated for
the day before his inauguration. The Court has agreed to
hear TikTok's challenge to the potential ban on an expedited schedule,
but Trump told the justices that delaying the law until
he returns to the White House could obviate the need
for the court to weigh in.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Quote.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal making expertise, the
electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution
to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns,
wrote d John Sawyer, one of Trump's personal appellate attorneys.
So yeah, this is interesting and interesting development. I don't
(19:28):
know if you're a big TikToker or not, but we
have we have some some followers on our on our
civic cipher TikTok, so that's a platform that has some
you know, so this is something that is a particular
interest at least to me and Q over here, what
are your thoughts getting.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
I think the key word that you've mentioned is definitely
interesting because you know this, it is an interesting move
for it to be a priority for Trump to come
out on because I will say that I'm very curious
over more of the incentives on his part, other than
the fact that that was part of the thing that
(20:08):
he did mention on the campaign trail about, you know,
people to vote for him if they wanted him to
save TikTok, because he had allegedly kind of switched his
stants on the platform not necessarily being banned and maybe
renegotiating whatever those terms were going to be, and so
a lot of people maybe if they haven't kept up
(20:30):
to date, it's really about the platform changing its parent
company that does have Chinese ties. But it was really
interesting because different debates that I've seen, even over TikTok,
it really does kind of bring into question even more
with you know, there are so many state representatives that
(20:51):
you know across both sides that seem very adamant on
wanting a lot more restrictions and bands on TikTok when
when you really look, I mean it as a platform
doesn't necessarily trade or save user information any differently than
any of the other social platforms that we use. So
it almost does kind of it does kind of eye
(21:14):
open where you know, is it okay when we're talking
about the conversation on access to data that technically, by
getting on the platform, we're volunteering, you know, necessarily is
that information any less dangerous than in conglomerates that are
in the US, Like, just because someone is very powerful here,
they're still collecting that the amount of data and actually
(21:35):
collect even more. I mean, as far as I know,
I think Google, Google's practices even actually kind of expand
a lot more than TikTok ever has.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, so yeah your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
I think the guy is the political the political equal
of an arsonist firefighter, right like, starts the fire going,
then has somebody call him so he can put it
out and be the hero. Right Like, I'm the soul
singularly me, I'm the sole person who's most qualified to
(22:11):
fix everything that's wrong with TikTok and America and Jesus
and Bibles and shoes and watches and every like, everything
that's wrong. He's the single person qualified to fix it everything,
And he spent his entire political career, you know, jumped
(22:31):
off of a very very racist, white supremacist platform from
the jump, and since that moment, has presented everything that
he thinks is wrong with us, as in some cases
prevented solutions to the problems that he points out, so
he can be the one that comes to save the day.
And it's it's very cool following Katie because she makes
(22:53):
all the best points, so just follow her leader. But
she's right, it's not like TikTok is more nefarious than
every other tech company that we are, and it's not
essentially in business with ourselves.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
And it's not like those companies haven't had data leaks themselves.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
So if China, China's probably already got everything they need
on us. But go ahead, I'm saying, oh no, no,
I mean that's the thing that they're remember.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
There's actually no evidence to show that that information has
gone to China and that China's doing anything to it.
There's no evidence that has backed that.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Claim, So I think that makes you even more right.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
Yeah, and Katie's right. They're going to use the thought
that maybe it might happen one day to scare us
into banning this company so that it can be available
for sale so they can buy it. It's just again,
it would be funny if it wasn't so scary because
it's so real, man, right in front of our faces, corruption,
and we seem to have no problem with it.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Do you know?
Speaker 1 (23:52):
I When I'm listening to the both of you talk,
I'm reminded of a story that Dave Chappelle told. He
told a story that he read from a book.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
I believe the book was called Pimp. Okay, follow me,
it's about to get weird.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
No, I know this story.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
So in the story, there's a pimp and he's basically
saying how he can get like sort of mind control
over a woman that works for him. And you'd have
to watch Dave shift tell retail the story in order
to get all the particulars in the details. But the
(24:34):
shortened version of it, what I remember of it is
that what happens is he takes like an extension chord
or something like this, and then he beats this woman,
and after he's done beating her, he draws her a
bath and then takes care of all of her wounds,
(24:57):
and he's very tender with her, and he does such
a good job taking care of her that she indeed
forgets that he is the one that beat her in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
And that happens to jibe.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
The reason why that story stood out in my mind
is because I recall encountering a study in college.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
When I was in college.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
It was a psychology study and it was based on dogs.
But the idea was to determine how was loyalty built,
how is it best built? And in this experiment that
I learned about in college, they took three groups of puppies, right,
and they had a control group that had no stimulus,
(25:44):
no involvement, nothing like that. They were fed just normal control.
Then they had a group of puppies that were abused
and fed and cared for. But they were abused, they
were kicked or whatever else, but they were fed and
cared for as well.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
And then they had a group that was just abused.
That's it.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
They got fed and they got abused, and that's it,
but they weren't cared for. And as the dogs grew,
they wanted to figure out which one, which group was
the most loyal, and everyone in class thought, okay, well,
the dogs that were always cared for, always pet like,
kind of the control group, those were the ones that
were the most loyal. And then there were a few
(26:27):
that said no, the dogs that were kicked and abused,
they were fear based, so they had to be the
most loyal. As it turns out, when you mix abuse
with like caretaking, it makes you the most loyal of
all right, And this is of course dogs and this
you know, but this gives some insight into basic psychology
(26:49):
and why that story Dave Chappelle told was so memorable
to me. So to your point, Q, when you look
at Donald Trump being the arson and the firefighter, arsonist
and the firefighter, he's the person that creates the problem
or allows the problem to persist, or otherwise exacerbates the
problem or amplifies it to his base and then comes
(27:10):
comes from behind and puts the fire out, so to speak.
Then you know it's it's just a masterful play on
human psychology on a grand national stage. And you know,
those of us that don't fall for it can see
through it. But those that fall for it, it's almost
(27:30):
like basic human psychology, not unlike some of the other
world leaders that we've seen in the past who have
tricked entire nations into doing immoral things or adopting an
im moral posture, or otherwise committing atrocious acts on their
fellow countrymen or you know, countries around the world. And
(27:53):
so it's scary to know that that that's where we are.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Again.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
This is not I'm not here to break down this
side college of it, but I think your point is
well made. Both of your points are well made, and
we're just going to see what happens with TikTok. But
for now we'll leave it right there, and thank you,
as always for your time and your insight. Once again,
today's guest is Black Information Network news anchor Katie Gray.
This has been a production of the Black Information Network.
(28:19):
Today's show is produced by Chris Thompson. Have some thoughts
you'd like to share, use the red microphone talkback feature
on the iHeartRadio app. While you're there, be sure to
hit subscribe and download all of our episodes.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
I'm your host.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Ramsey's jaw On all social media and join us tomorrow
as we share our news with our voice from our
perspective right here on the Black Information Network Daily podcast
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!