theguardian--2020-01-19--Virginia gun rally: anti-fascist activists will not mount counter-protest

Anti-fascist activists will not mount a counter-protest at a gun rights rally at Virginia ’ s state capitol on Monday that is expected to attract thousands , including white supremacists and anti-government militia groups .
Anti-fascists from Richmond and Charlottesville publicly advised supporters to avoid the rally altogether , citing serious safety concerns .
Molly Conger , a journalist and activist , told the Guardian activists in Charlottesville had agreed to encourage supporters to stay away .
“ There is no counter-demonstration planned for the 20 January convergence of armed militias on Virginia ’ s capitol , ” Conger wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ on ] Monday will not be safe .
This is not an outcome we can affect.
” Anti-fascist groups cited several reasons for their decision , including serious threats of violence , their own opposition to some gun control measures proposed by the Virginia government and concern for ordinary gun owners planning to attend the rally .
A number of arrests have highlighted the risk of white supremacist violence at the event .
Among those arrested are alleged members of a neo-Nazi group , including men who reportedly discussed opening fire at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were charged with plotting to murder an antifascist couple in Georgia .
As white supremacists , militia groups and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones announced plans to attend , the event has drawn comparisons to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017 , which produced extensive violence and the murder of counter-protester Heather Heyer .
Some local activists who monitor the far right , however , said there were clear differences this time .
“ The Charlottesville event was , from the beginning , an event by neo-Nazis and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymously by a longtime Richmond anti-fascist activist said on Saturday .
“ There were no other players .
Everyone going into that event knew exactly who would be participating and there wasn ’ t the risk of 5,000 unknowing subjects caught in the middle.
” In contrast , Monday is Lobby Day , an annual event organized by a gun rights group , the Virginia Citizens Defense League , that attracts a range of local residents .
“ I expect a lot of the participants to be older , working class Virginians that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the category of any hate group , ” the anonymous anti-fascist activist who runs the Richmond Twitter account told the Guardian .
“ Part of the concern is their safety.
” The activist said many locals showing up to the rally will likely have had no experience with volatile protest environments .
As conspiracy theories about what “ antifa ” activists might do at Lobby Day continue to circulate on the right , one Richmond-based anti-fascist group has publicly pushed back against such rumors .
“ Hey !
Antifascists are NOT bussing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seven Hills wrote on Twitter .
“ In fact we are encouraging folks to stay away from the capitol and downtown [ Richmond ] because of far-right escalations like this.
” In a direct message , the group told the Guardian : “ We are against the [ gun control ] legislation and the racists attempting to take advantage of this typically calm and multi-issue lobby day.
” Skepticism about government gun control is a point of agreement between rightwing activists and some US leftists , who argue that marginalized Americans should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Philip Van Cleave , president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , said last week his supporters had been told antifa “ is actually on our side of the fence , because they don ’ t like these gun laws either ” .
“ If they show , it ’ s not going to be to protest us , ” Van Cleave told the Guardian on Wednesday .

Anti-fascist activists will not mount a counter-protest at a gun rights rally at Virginia’s state capitol on Monday that is expected to attract thousands, including white supremacists and anti-government militia groups.
Anti-fascists from Richmond and Charlottesville publicly advised supporters to avoid the rally altogether, citing serious safety concerns. Molly Conger, a journalist and activist, told the Guardian activists in Charlottesville had agreed to encourage supporters to stay away.
“There is no counter-demonstration planned for the 20 January convergence of armed militias on Virginia’s capitol,” Conger wrote on Twitter on Saturday. “Conditions [on] Monday will not be safe. This is not an outcome we can affect.”
Anti-fascist groups cited several reasons for their decision, including serious threats of violence, their own opposition to some gun control measures proposed by the Virginia government and concern for ordinary gun owners planning to attend the rally.
A number of arrests have highlighted the risk of white supremacist violence at the event. Among those arrested are alleged members of a neo-Nazi group, including men who reportedly discussed opening fire at the Richmond rally, and men who were charged with plotting to murder an antifascist couple in Georgia.
As white supremacists, militia groups and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones announced plans to attend, the event has drawn comparisons to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, which produced extensive violence and the murder of counter-protester Heather Heyer.
Some local activists who monitor the far right, however, said there were clear differences this time.
“The Charlottesville event was, from the beginning, an event by neo-Nazis and for neo-Nazis,” a Twitter account run anonymously by a longtime Richmond anti-fascist activist said on Saturday.
“There were no other players. Everyone going into that event knew exactly who would be participating and there wasn’t the risk of 5,000 unknowing subjects caught in the middle.”
In contrast, Monday is Lobby Day, an annual event organized by a gun rights group, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, that attracts a range of local residents.
“I expect a lot of the participants to be older, working class Virginians that are not far-right and do not fit into the category of any hate group,” the anonymous anti-fascist activist who runs the Richmond Twitter account told the Guardian. “Part of the concern is their safety.”
The activist said many locals showing up to the rally will likely have had no experience with volatile protest environments.
As conspiracy theories about what “antifa” activists might do at Lobby Day continue to circulate on the right, one Richmond-based anti-fascist group has publicly pushed back against such rumors.
“Hey! Antifascists are NOT bussing [people] in,” Antifa Seven Hills wrote on Twitter. “In fact we are encouraging folks to stay away from the capitol and downtown [Richmond] because of far-right escalations like this.”
In a direct message, the group told the Guardian: “We are against the [gun control] legislation and the racists attempting to take advantage of this typically calm and multi-issue lobby day.”
Skepticism about government gun control is a point of agreement between rightwing activists and some US leftists, who argue that marginalized Americans should have the right to defend themselves with firearms.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said last week his supporters had been told antifa “is actually on our side of the fence, because they don’t like these gun laws either”.
“If they show, it’s not going to be to protest us,” Van Cleave told the Guardian on Wednesday.


theguardian--2020-01-19--Top progressives back Sanders as skirmish with Warren rumbles on

In a move touted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a “ really big deal ” , a key progressive member of Congress endorsed Bernie Sanders for president on Sunday , building on Ocasio-Cortez ’ s own endorsement and others .
Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington , a co-chairman of the congressional progressive caucus , told the Washington Post she was endorsing Sanders because “ he has a clarity on policy prescriptions that goes right to the heart of what working people need ” .
“ Really big deal , ” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez , the progressive star from New York .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House.
” Ilhan Omar , also a progressive caucus leader , added her approval with a nod to Sanders ’ Brooklyn accent : “ This is yuge !
!
!
” The news was excellently timed for Sanders , 78 , whose viability as a standard-bearer for the modern Democratic party , which has sought to highlight its youth and diversity in the age of Donald Trump , was challenged this week around a skirmish with fellow candidate Elizabeth Warren .
Campaigning separately in Iowa at the weekend , both candidates sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them following the presidential debate in Iowa , when a CNN microphone caught Warren telling Sanders he made her out to be a liar on national television .
Warren has said Sanders told her in a meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency in November 2020 , a claim Sanders has denied .
“ Bernie and I have been friends a long time ” Warren said at a house party in Des Moines , Iowa , on Saturday , when quizzed by a supporter who said she believed Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We fight for the same issues .
That ’ s all I want to say about that topic because what I truly believe is we ’ re going to have to pull together.
” In Exeter , New Hampshire , Sanders pledged to come together with other Democrats to back the eventual nominee .
“ No matter who wins this hotly contested primary , all of us will unite , ” he said .
Any doubts about Sanders ’ support in the progressive wing of the party that may have been raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Jayapal endorsement .
The other chair of the progressive caucus , Mark Pocan of Wisconsin , endorsed Sanders last week and will be chairing his campaign in the state .
The disintegration of a non-aggression pact between Warren and Sanders – and the resulting online backlash from supporters in both camps – caused handwringing among progressive groups , which urged supporters of the two senators to reserve their fire for centrist rivals .
Sanders is leading Warren in most national opinion polls but both trail former Vice-President Joe Biden , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters who attended the two progressives ’ events on Friday and Saturday showed that they largely wanted the candidates to move on .
Sue Foecke , 40 , attended the Des Moines house party hosted by Planned Parenthood Action Fund and plans to support Warren .
She said a continued focus on the 2018 meeting “ doesn ’ t add anything to the conversation ” .
Though Foecke said she did not have a backup candidate because Warren should be “ viable ” in Iowa and able to win delegates , some at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their second choice .
“ It breaks my heart , ” said Kathy Staub , 62 , a Sanders backer who is involved in local politics in Manchester , of the controversy between the two candidates .
Staub said she liked both candidates but contrasted Sanders ’ history as a grassroots organizer with Warren ’ s more recent emergence as a leading progressive with “ policy wonk ” plans .
Asked by a supporter about Democratic infighting , Sanders did not mention Warren or any other candidate and suggested disputes were overblown by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exaggerates conflict ” .
Warren repeatedly demurred when she was asked by reporters about the scuffle , responding : “ I don ’ t have anything else to say on this.
” Sanders ’ campaign has zeroed in on Biden .
It criticized his 2002 vote for the Iraq war , which Sanders opposed , and accused him of supporting cutting Social Security benefits for the elderly in the past , which Biden denied .
The former vice-president ’ s campaign accused Sanders staffers of lying .

In a move touted by the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a “really big deal”, a key progressive member of Congress endorsed Bernie Sanders for president on Sunday, building on Ocasio-Cortez’s own endorsement and others.
The congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a co-chairman of the congressional progressive caucus, told the Washington Post she was endorsing Sanders because “he has a clarity on policy prescriptions that goes right to the heart of what working people need”.
“Really big deal,” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive star from New York. “Pramila is a major leader in the House.”
The Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar, also a progressive caucus leader, added her approval with a nod to Sanders’ Brooklyn accent: “This is yuge!!!”
The news was excellently timed for Sanders, 78, whose viability as a standard-bearer for the modern Democratic party, which has sought to highlight its youth and diversity in the age of Donald Trump, was challenged this week around a skirmish with fellow candidate Elizabeth Warren.
Campaigning separately in Iowa at the weekend, both candidates sought to dismiss the perception of friction between them following the presidential debate in Iowa, when a CNN microphone caught Warren telling Sanders he made her out to be a liar on national television.
Warren has said Sanders told her in a meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency in November 2020, a claim Sanders has denied.
“Bernie and I have been friends a long time,” Warren said at a house party in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, when quizzed by a supporter who said she believed Warren’s side of the story. “We fight for the same issues. That’s all I want to say about that topic because what I truly believe is we’re going to have to pull together.”
In Exeter, New Hampshire, Sanders pledged to come together with other Democrats to back the eventual nominee.
“No matter who wins this hotly contested primary, all of us will unite,” he said.
Any doubts about Sanders’ support in the progressive wing of the party that may have been raised by the debate contretemps were forcefully rebutted by the Jayapal endorsement. The other chair of the progressive caucus, Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, endorsed Sanders last week and will be chairing his campaign in the state.
The disintegration of a non-aggression pact between Warren and Sanders – and the resulting online backlash from supporters in both camps – caused handwringing among progressive groups, which urged supporters of the two senators to reserve their fire for centrist rivals.
Sanders is leading Warren in most national opinion polls but both trail former vice-president Joe Biden, a moderate.
Interviews with more than 20 voters who attended the two progressives’ events on Friday and Saturday showed that they largely wanted the candidates to move on.
Sue Foecke, 40, attended the Des Moines house party hosted by Planned Parenthood Action Fund and plans to support Warren. She said a continued focus on the 2018 meeting “doesn’t add anything to the conversation”.
Though Foecke said she did not have a backup candidate because Warren should be “viable” in Iowa and able to win delegates, some at Warren’s events named Sanders as their second choice.
“It breaks my heart,” said Kathy Staub, 62, a Sanders backer who is involved in local politics in Manchester, of the controversy between the two candidates.
Staub said she liked both candidates but contrasted Sanders’ history as a grassroots organizer with Warren’s more recent emergence as a leading progressive with “policy wonk” plans.
Asked by a supporter about Democratic infighting, Sanders did not mention Warren or any other candidate and suggested disputes were overblown by news media that “often wants and exaggerates conflict”.
Warren repeatedly demurred when she was asked by reporters about the scuffle, responding: “I don’t have anything else to say on this.”
Sanders’ campaign has zeroed in on Biden. It criticized his 2002 vote for the Iraq war, which Sanders opposed, and accused him of supporting cutting social security benefits for the elderly in the past, which Biden denied. The former vice-president’s campaign accused Sanders staffers of lying.


theguardian--2020-01-19--Impeachment: Trump wants Senate trial over before State of the Union address

Donald Trump wants his impeachment trial to end before his state of the union address in just two weeks ’ time , Lindsey Graham said on Sunday .
“ His mood is , to go to the state of the union [ on 4 February ] with this behind him and talk about what he wants to do for the rest of 2020 and what he wants to do for the next four years , ” the South Carolina senator and close Trump ally told Fox News Sunday .
That timeline is ambitious , given overwhelming public support for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his Senate trial , in which opening arguments will be heard on Tuesday .
Graham conceded that a swift dismissal of the charges , which he had hoped for , will not be possible .
The trial could include testimony from top Trump advisers with firsthand knowledge of his alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals .
But the White House has indicated that Trump would invoke executive privilege to prevent such advisers from testifying , setting up a court fight that could drag the trial out for weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is over the better for the country , ” Graham insisted .
On Saturday evening , House Democrats and the Trump legal team outlined their approaches to the trial .
The House impeachment managers , who will act as prosecutors , declared the president must be removed for putting his political career ahead of the public trust and seeking to hide that betrayal from Congress and the American people .
The seven managers led by intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff published a 46-page tiral brief .
A 61-page “ statement of material facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slimmer filing , the White House replied to a congressional writ of summons notifying Trump of the charges against him and inviting him to attend the trial .
The six-page White House filing was a work of blanket denial , stating : “ President Trump categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both articles of impeachment.
” Signed by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and by Jay Sekulow , a personal lawyer to Trump , it also charged the Democrats with “ a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 election , now just months away ” .
Speaking to ABC ’ s This Week on Sunday , Schiff noted that the White House did not attempt to rebut the case on its facts .
“ It ’ s surprising in that it really doesn ’ t offer much new beyond the failed arguments we heard in the House , ” he said .
“ The facts aren ’ t seriously contested.
” Another impeachment manager , Jason Crow of Colorado , said the White House was in effect arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If all of the president ’ s arguments are true , that a president can ’ t be indicted , and that the abuse of power , the abuse of public trust doesn ’ t count as an impeachable offense – if that is true , then no president can be held accountable , ” he told CNN ’ s State of the Union .
“ Then the president truly is above the law.
” The battle lines roughly plotted by the two documents will be engaged in earnest on Tuesday , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making their case against the president .
A two-thirds majority of senators would be required to remove Trump from office .
That is vastly unlikely , given a Republican party aligned behind the president and a Senate leadership openly in lockstep with the White House .
Trump must be removed , Democrats argue , owing to the egregiousness of his past misconduct and his ongoing efforts to encourage foreign tampering in US elections .
“ President Trump ’ s continuing presence in office undermines the integrity of our democratic processes and endangers our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ President Trump ’ s abuse of power requires his conviction and removal from office.
” On Sunday Alan Dershowitz , the controversial Harvard law professor who has joined Trump ’ s legal team , argued on CNN that the charges against the president were not impeachable because abuse of power does not constitute a “ high crime and misdemeanor ” as stipulated in the US constitution as grounds for impeachment .
That view is an extreme outlier among legal scholars , but it is not the only time that Dershowitz , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein , has gone against his colleagues .
Dershowitz denied that his past representation of and friendship with Epstein could “ backfire ” in the impeachment trial , besmirching the president ’ s defense in the eyes particularly of women in Senate and beyond .
“ They understand that it ’ s pure McCarthyism to hold a lawyer responsible for having represented controversial clients , ” he said .
Republicans have never attempted to mount a point-for-point rebuttal of evidence amassed by Democrats that Trump mounted a months-long effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought could damage Joe Biden , his political rival .
Evidence indicates that the effort derailed the career of a respected US ambassador at the wishes of corrupt Ukrainian elements , potentially threatening her personal security ; used the promise of a White House meeting to extract the “ deliverable ” Trump wanted ; and escalated to the suspension by Trump of security aid for Ukraine appropriated by Congress .
The Democratic briefing highlighted evidence that has emerged since Trump was impeached in the House in December .
That evidence includes documents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close associate of Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s designated point person in Ukraine .
Identifying himself as the “ personal counsel to President Trump ” , Giuliani sought a meeting with Ukrainian president-elect Volodymyr Zelenskiy in May 2019 , according to Parnas evidence cited in the briefing .
“ President Trump has betrayed the American people and the ideals on which the nation was founded , ” the Democratic briefing concluded .
“ Unless he is removed from office , he will continue to endanger our national security , jeopardize the integrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core constitutional principles .
”

Tom McCarthy and Martin Pengelly in New York

Donald Trump wants his impeachment trial to end before his state of the union address in just two weeks’ time, Lindsey Graham said on Sunday.
“His mood is, to go to the state of the union [on 4 February] with this behind him and talk about what he wants to do for the rest of 2020 and what he wants to do for the next four years,” the South Carolina senator and close Trump ally told Fox News Sunday.
That timeline is ambitious, given overwhelming public support for a fair airing of the charges against Trump at his Senate trial, in which opening arguments will be heard on Tuesday. Graham conceded that a swift dismissal of the charges, which he had hoped for, will not be possible.
The trial could include testimony from top Trump advisers with firsthand knowledge of his alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. But the White House has indicated that Trump would invoke executive privilege to prevent such advisers from testifying, setting up a court fight that could drag the trial out for weeks or longer.
“The sooner this is over the better for the country,” Graham insisted.
On Saturday evening, House Democrats and the Trump legal team outlined their approaches to the trial.
The House impeachment managers, who will act as prosecutors, declared the president must be removed for putting his political career ahead of the public trust and seeking to hide that betrayal from Congress and the American people.
The seven managers led by intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff published a 46-page tiral brief. A 61-page “statement of material facts” was attached.
In a much slimmer filing, the White House replied to a congressional writ of summons notifying Trump of the charges against him and inviting him to attend the trial.
The six-page White House filing was a work of blanket denial, stating: “President Trump categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both articles of impeachment.”
If all of the president’s arguments are true, then the president truly is above the law Jason Crow
Signed by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and by Jay Sekulow, a personal lawyer to Trump, it also charged the Democrats with “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away”.
Speaking to ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Schiff noted that the White House did not attempt to rebut the case on its facts.
“It’s surprising in that it really doesn’t offer much new beyond the failed arguments we heard in the House,” he said. “The facts aren’t seriously contested.”
Another impeachment manager, Jason Crow of Colorado, said the White House was in effect arguing that Trump was above the law.
“If all of the president’s arguments are true, that a president can’t be indicted, and that the abuse of power, the abuse of public trust doesn’t count as an impeachable offense – if that is true, then no president can be held accountable,” he told CNN’s State of the Union. “Then the president truly is above the law.”
The battle lines roughly plotted by the two documents will be engaged in earnest on Tuesday, when the House managers are expected to begin making their case against the president. A two-thirds majority of senators would be required to remove Trump from office. That is vastly unlikely, given a Republican party aligned behind the president and a Senate leadership openly in lockstep with the White House.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi signs the resolution to transmit the two articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
Trump must be removed, Democrats argue, owing to the egregiousness of his past misconduct and his ongoing efforts to encourage foreign tampering in US elections.
“President Trump’s continuing presence in office undermines the integrity of our democratic processes and endangers our national security,” the managers wrote. “President Trump’s abuse of power requires his conviction and removal from office.”
On Sunday Alan Dershowitz, the controversial Harvard law professor who has joined Trump’s legal team, argued on CNN that the charges against the president were not impeachable because abuse of power does not constitute a “high crime and misdemeanor” as stipulated in the US constitution as grounds for impeachment.
That view is an extreme outlier among legal scholars, but it is not the only time that Dershowitz, who formerly represented OJ Simpson and the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has gone against his colleagues.
Dershowitz denied that his past representation of and friendship with Epstein could “backfire” in the impeachment trial, besmirching the president’s defense in the eyes particularly of women in Senate and beyond.
“They understand that it’s pure McCarthyism to hold a lawyer responsible for having represented controversial clients,” he said.
Republicans have never attempted to mount a point-for-point rebuttal of evidence amassed by Democrats that Trump mounted a months-long effort to extract announcements from Ukraine that Trump thought could damage Joe Biden, his political rival.
Evidence indicates that the effort derailed the career of a respected US ambassador at the wishes of corrupt Ukrainian elements, potentially threatening her personal security; used the promise of a White House meeting to extract the “deliverable” Trump wanted; and escalated to the suspension by Trump of security aid for Ukraine appropriated by Congress.
The Democratic briefing highlighted evidence that has emerged since Trump was impeached in the House in December. That evidence includes documents and testimony from Lev Parnas, a former close associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s designated point person in Ukraine.
Identifying himself as the “personal counsel to President Trump”, Giuliani sought a meeting with Ukrainian president-elect Volodymyr Zelenskiy in May 2019, according to Parnas evidence cited in the briefing.
“President Trump has betrayed the American people and the ideals on which the nation was founded,” the Democratic briefing concluded.
“Unless he is removed from office, he will continue to endanger our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections, and undermine our core constitutional principles.”


theguardian--2020-01-19--Biden calls for Sanders to disown ‘doctored’ video on Social Security

Joe Biden has called for Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign to “ disown ” what he calls “ doctored video ” that some Sanders supporters say shows the former vice-president endorsing Republican calls to cut Social Security and Medicare .
“ There ’ s a little doctored video going around … put out by one of Bernie ’ s people , ” Biden told supporters on Saturday in Indianola , Iowa , referring to a 2018 speech in which Biden discussed then House ppeaker Paul Ryan saying rising deficit demanded action on the popular entitlement programs .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward and disown it , ” Biden continued , pointing to his 2020 campaign proposals designed to shore up Social Security .
“ But they haven ’ t done it yet.
” The video in question , circulated on Twitter by a top Sanders adviser , does not appear to be altered .
But the short clip omits Biden ’ s larger argument over how Ryan handled the 2017 tax cuts and subsequent budget debates .
A separate Sanders ’ adviser included a transcript of Biden ’ s remarks in the video clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added other , more extended video , of Biden as a US senator in 1995 and presidential candidate in 2007 explaining his support for a more austere federal budget , including putting Social Security and Medicare “ on the table ” .
The 2020 campaign flap highlights long-standing philosophical fissures between the progressive Sanders , who has spent decades arguing for a massive expansion of the federal government , and the more centrist Biden .
Those differences have come to the fore as Biden and Sanders are bunched with Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary .
Responding to Biden ’ s remarks , Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said : “ Joe Biden should be honest with voters and stop trying to doctor his own public record of consistently and repeatedly trying to cut Social Security .
“ The facts are very clear : Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security – he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions , ” Shakir said in a statement .
“ The vice-president must stop dodging questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has so aggressively pushed to slash one of the most significant and successful social programs in American history , which millions of Americans rely on for survival.
” In a 1 January tweet , Sanders adviser Warren Gunnels wrote that it “ is soul-wrenching ” to have heard “ Biden say ‘ Ryan was correct ’ .
” He attached a 20-second video clip taken from an April 2018 speech Biden delivered at the Brookings Institution .
“ Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go after ?
” Biden said , leaning into the microphone .
“ Social Security and Medicare .
That ’ s the only way you can find room to pay for it.
“ It was part of a broader speech in which Biden outlined his economic vision .
He previewed his 2020 campaign emphasis on the middle class but declared that billionaires are not “ the problem ” , an implicit contrast with progressives .
The statement that Gunnels highlighted reflects a common Biden argument from the 2020 campaign : that Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tilted to corporations and the wealthiest Americans , knowing it would balloon the deficits , so the GOP could then justify cutting Social Security and Medicare .
“ What I ’ d do is I make sure that we expand Social Security coverage , ” Biden insisted on Friday when a voter in Iowa asked him about the program .
Biden , like most Democrats , proposes raising the cap on the level of income that is subject to the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare .
That cap is set at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning any income beyond that threshold is still subject to personal income tax , but not payroll taxes .
Biden , and many other Democrats , propose lifting that cap to increase the tax revenue flowing into the Medicare and Social Security trust funds .
Sanders ’ camp , meanwhile , maintains that Biden ’ s history is more important than his current proposals .
Another of their favorite video clips shows then Senator Biden , in the first years after Republicans ’ 1994 midterm election romp , calling for a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we should freeze federal spending , I meant Social Security , as well , ” Biden said at the time .
“ I meant Medicare and Medicaid .
I meant veterans ’ benefits … And I not only tried it once .
I tried it twice , I tried it a third time , and I tried it a fourth time.
” Just as the Biden campaign argues that Republicans would lambaste the Vermont senator as a socialist if he wins the Democratic nomination , Sanders ’ backers retort that Trump would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to harm Biden with older voters who will prove critical in battleground states in November .

Joe Biden has called for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign to “disown” what he calls “doctored video” that some Sanders supporters say shows the former vice-president endorsing Republican calls to cut social security and Medicare.
“There’s a little doctored video going around … put out by one of Bernie’s people,” Biden told supporters on Saturday in Indianola, Iowa, referring to a 2018 speech in which Biden discussed then House speaker Paul Ryan saying rising deficit demanded action on the popular entitlement programs.
“I’m looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it,” Biden continued, pointing to his 2020 campaign proposals designed to shore up social security. “But they haven’t done it yet.”
The video in question, circulated on Twitter by a top Sanders adviser, does not appear to be altered. But the short clip omits Biden’s larger argument over how Ryan handled the 2017 tax cuts and subsequent budget debates.
A separate Sanders’ adviser included a transcript of Biden’s remarks in the video clip in a separate campaign newsletter. He added other, more extended video, of Biden as a US senator in 1995 and presidential candidate in 2007 explaining his support for a more austere federal budget, including putting social security and Medicare “on the table”.
The 2020 campaign flap highlights long-standing philosophical fissures between the progressive Sanders, who has spent decades arguing for a massive expansion of the federal government, and the more centrist Biden. Those differences have come to the fore as Biden and Sanders are bunched with Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren atop early state polls weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.
Responding to Biden’s remarks, Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, said: “Joe Biden should be honest with voters and stop trying to doctor his own public record of consistently and repeatedly trying to cut social security.
“The facts are very clear: Biden not only pushed to cut social security – he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions,” Shakir said in a statement.
“The vice-president must stop dodging questions about his record, and start explaining why he has so aggressively pushed to slash one of the most significant and successful social programs in American history, which millions of Americans rely on for survival.”
In a 1 January tweet, Sanders adviser Warren Gunnels wrote that it “is soul-wrenching” to have heard “Biden say ‘Ryan was correct’.” He attached a 20-second video clip taken from an April 2018 speech Biden delivered at the Brookings Institution.
“Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after?” Biden said, leaning into the microphone. “Social security and Medicare. That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it.“
It was part of a broader speech in which Biden outlined his economic vision. He previewed his 2020 campaign emphasis on the middle class but declared that billionaires are not “the problem”, an implicit contrast with progressives.
The statement that Gunnels highlighted reflects a common Biden argument from the 2020 campaign: that Republicans pushed a tax cut whose benefits are tilted to corporations and the wealthiest Americans, knowing it would balloon the deficits, so the GOP could then justify cutting social security and Medicare.
“What I’d do is I make sure that we expand social security coverage,” Biden insisted on Friday when a voter in Iowa asked him about the program.
Biden, like most Democrats, proposes raising the cap on the level of income that is subject to the payroll taxes for social security and Medicare. That cap is set at $137,700 for the current tax year, meaning any income beyond that threshold is still subject to personal income tax, but not payroll taxes. Biden, and many other Democrats, propose lifting that cap to increase the tax revenue flowing into the Medicare and social security trust funds.
Sanders’ camp, meanwhile, maintains that Biden’s history is more important than his current proposals. Another of their favorite video clips shows Biden, in the first years after Republicans’ 1994 midterm election romp, calling for a more austere approach.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant social security, as well,” Biden said at the time. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits … And I not only tried it once. I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.”
Just as the Biden campaign argues that Republicans would lambaste the Vermont senator as a socialist if he wins the Democratic nomination, Sanders’ backers retort that Trump would use the same video clips they cite to harm Biden with older voters who will prove critical in battleground states in November.


theguardian--2020-01-20--Iowa's minority voters to Democrats: reject Trump and tell our story of hope

Customers entering Zamora Fresh Market are greeted by Spanish-language music and the colorful sight of papel picado hanging from the ceiling of a small dine-in section .
Employees chat in Spanish to each other and people buying tortas , lengua de res and containers of arroz y frijoles .
Zamora ’ s sits on Main Street in Marshalltown , Iowa , about 45 minutes north-east of Des Moines .
The market ’ s presence in the center of town , alongside a number of other Latinx-owned businesses , is a testament to how Marshalltown has been shaped by the waves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades .
As the Iowa caucuses near , Marshalltown has become a frequent stop for Democratic presidential candidates .
In the past month alone , the town has been visited by Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg and billionaire activist Tom Steyer .
When those candidates come to Marshalltown , they face an audience that is more racially diverse than much of Iowa and acutely aware of what ’ s at stake .
Latinx immigrants first started arriving to Marshalltown in large numbers in the 1990s , seeking jobs at the local meat-processing plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 30 % of the town ’ s population of 27,000 , compared with 6.2 % of Iowa ’ s total population .
The district ’ s superintendent estimated last year that children of color made up about 70 % of incoming kindergarten students .
Local leaders acknowledge many Marshalltown residents are undocumented or “ dreamers ” , those who came to the US as young children and benefited from the Obama administration ’ s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( Daca ) policy .
Veronica Guevara , a founding member of local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organization aims to dispel myths about the immigration system for residents who have not experienced it firsthand .
But Guevara said the group ’ s work has shifted since the 2016 election of Donald Trump .
“ A lot of the work has changed to respond to what ’ s going on , ever since this president was inaugurated , ” Guevara said .
“ There have just been so many things happening so close together .
It ’ s been really hard to respond and keep people up to date.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alfonso Medina Jr , who owns a local restaurant , met Marshalltown officials to ensure they would protect the town ’ s immigrant community .
“ Since Trump won , there ’ s definitely fear .
There ’ s insecurity , ” he said “ We ’ re very fortunate to have a very welcoming town.
” Marshalltown residents attending campaign events for the upcoming caucuses spoke with pride about their town being among the most racially diverse in the state .
“ When we first moved here 20 years ago , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of businesses , ” said Jim Kelehan , 64 , just before seeing former secretary of state John Kerry stump for Joe Biden in Marshalltown .
“ It has really changed a lot and for the better.
” Medina made a point to emphasize that much of Marshalltown ’ s economy has been made possible by the town ’ s immigrant community .
“ Marshalltown would not be where it is today without the Hispanic community , ” Medina said .
“ It ’ s thriving.
” When it comes to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wished more candidates recognized the direct connection between immigration and the economy , arguing immigrants fill jobs that would otherwise remain open as the unemployment rate remains at a 50-year low .
“ They ’ ll talk about how we need immigration reform , as anybody running always does , ” said Medina , who has met Buttigieg and Steyer .
“ But I think we really do need to make it a reality this time because it ’ s something that ’ s a dire need.
” Guevara credited former housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential campaign earlier this month , for pushing his primary opponents on the issue of immigration .
Castro pledged to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings , a proposal that was adopted by many of his fellow candidates .
But overall , Guevara , who is caucusing for Sanders , said the immigration debate amid the Democratic presidential primary sometimes missed the mark .
“ A lot of what people ask for sometimes get lost amid all the noise , ” she said .
“ For family members I have who don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be left alone .
They just want peace and to be able to be left alone.
” When Iowans gather to caucus on 3 February , residents of Marshalltown who are undocumented will not be allowed to weigh in on who should face off against Trump in November .
However , this administration ’ s border policies , combined with the president ’ s anti-immigrant rhetoric , appear to have made those with undocumented loved ones more determined to caucus next month .
“ The folks that I talk to , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have status , are even more motivated to vote , ” Guevara said .
“ I feel like the general sentiment among a lot of people I know is that it is so important to vote right now.
” Of course , the rarity of towns like Marshalltown in Iowa raises the question of whether it and New Hampshire should continue to vote first at all , given both are mostly white .
Castro resurrected this issue late last year , expressing concern about having states that are “ not reflective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote first in the nominating contest .
On this question , a slight split emerged among some of Marshalltown ’ s community leaders .
Jeannine Grady , the chair of the Marshall County Democrats , noted that Iowans considered their early voting status to be “ a bit of a sacred cow ” .
“ Why do people feel that the first contest has to be reflective of the nation ?
” she added .
“ No state accurately reflects the entire nation.
” But Medina , who originally endorsed Castro before backing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary that a reorganization of the early primary states was worth consideration .
“ I ’ m a firm believer that just because something has been done that certain way doesn ’ t mean it ’ s the right way , ” Medina said .
“ I would not have a problem with another state going first instead of Iowa and New Hampshire .
I would support it .
”

Customers entering Zamora Fresh Market are greeted by Spanish-language music and the colorful sight of papel picado hanging from the ceiling of a small dine-in section. Employees chat in Spanish to each other and people buying tortas, lengua de res and containers of arroz y frijoles.
Zamora’s sits on Main Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, about 45 minutes north-east of Des Moines. The market’s presence in the center of town, alongside a number of other Latinx-owned businesses, is a testament to how Marshalltown has been shaped by the waves of immigrants who have arrived in recent decades.
As the Iowa caucuses near, Marshalltown has become a frequent stop for Democratic presidential candidates. In the past month alone, the town has been visited by Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and billionaire activist Tom Steyer. When those candidates come to Marshalltown, they face an audience that is more racially diverse than much of Iowa and acutely aware of what’s at stake.
Latinx immigrants first started arriving to Marshalltown in large numbers in the 1990s, seeking jobs at the local meat-processing plant. Today, the Latinx community constitutes nearly 30% of the town’s population of 27,000, compared with 6.2% of Iowa’s total population. The district’s superintendent estimated last year that children of color made up about 70% of incoming kindergarten students.
Local leaders acknowledge many Marshalltown residents are undocumented or “dreamers”, those who came to the US as young children and benefited from the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) policy.
Veronica Guevara, a founding member of local group Immigrant Allies of Marshalltown, said the organization aims to dispel myths about the immigration system for residents who have not experienced it firsthand.
But Guevara said the group’s work has shifted since the 2016 election of Donald Trump. “A lot of the work has changed to respond to what’s going on, ever since this president was inaugurated,” Guevara said. “There have just been so many things happening so close together. It’s been really hard to respond and keep people up to date.”
Shortly after Trump’s election, Alfonso Medina Jr, who owns a local restaurant, met Marshalltown officials to ensure they would protect the town’s immigrant community. “Since Trump won, there’s definitely fear. There’s insecurity,” he said “We’re very fortunate to have a very welcoming town.”
Marshalltown residents attending campaign events for the upcoming caucuses spoke with pride about their town being among the most racially diverse in the state. “When we first moved here 20 years ago, it wasn’t that diverse, in terms of businesses,” said Jim Kelehan, 64, just before seeing former secretary of state John Kerry stump for Joe Biden in Marshalltown. “It has really changed a lot and for the better.”
Bernie Sanders in Marshalltown in October. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Medina made a point to emphasize that much of Marshalltown’s economy has been made possible by the town’s immigrant community. “Marshalltown would not be where it is today without the Hispanic community,” Medina said. “It’s thriving.”
When it comes to the Democratic presidential race, Medina said that he wished more candidates recognized the direct connection between immigration and the economy, arguing immigrants fill jobs that would otherwise remain open as the unemployment rate remains at a 50-year low.
“They’ll talk about how we need immigration reform, as anybody running always does,” said Medina, who has met Buttigieg and Steyer. “But I think we really do need to make it a reality this time because it’s something that’s a dire need.”
Guevara credited former housing secretary Julián Castro, who suspended his presidential campaign earlier this month, for pushing his primary opponents on the issue of immigration. Castro pledged to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings, a proposal that was adopted by many of his fellow candidates.
But overall, Guevara, who is caucusing for Sanders, said the immigration debate amid the Democratic presidential primary sometimes missed the mark. “A lot of what people ask for sometimes get lost amid all the noise,” she said. “For family members I have who don’t have status, all they want is just to be left alone. They just want peace and to be able to be left alone.”
When Iowans gather to caucus on 3 February, residents of Marshalltown who are undocumented will not be allowed to weigh in on who should face off against Trump in November. However, this administration’s border policies, combined with the president’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, appear to have made those with undocumented loved ones more determined to caucus next month.
“The folks that I talk to, especially the ones with family members that don’t have status, are even more motivated to vote,” Guevara said. “I feel like the general sentiment among a lot of people I know is that it is so important to vote right now.”
Of course, the rarity of towns like Marshalltown in Iowa raises the question of whether it and New Hampshire should continue to vote first at all, given both are mostly white. Castro resurrected this issue late last year, expressing concern about having states that are “not reflective of the US as a whole” vote first in the nominating contest.
On this question, a slight split emerged among some of Marshalltown’s community leaders. Jeannine Grady, the chair of the Marshall County Democrats, noted that Iowans considered their early voting status to be “a bit of a sacred cow”.
“Why do people feel that the first contest has to be reflective of the nation?” she added. “No state accurately reflects the entire nation.”
But Medina, who originally endorsed Castro before backing Warren, agreed with the former housing secretary that a reorganization of the early primary states was worth consideration.
“I’m a firm believer that just because something has been done that certain way doesn’t mean it’s the right way,” Medina said. “I would not have a problem with another state going first instead of Iowa and New Hampshire. I would support it.”


theguardian--2020-01-20--New York Times endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar

The New York Times has endorsed not one but two candidates for the Democratic nomination for president , Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar from the party ’ s moderate wing and Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren from the progressive wing .
The paper said on Sunday that it had chosen the two most effective candidates from the moderate and progressive sides of the party without stating a preference for either approach .
It praised Warren as “ a gifted story teller ” .
“ She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules of power in our country , ’ as she put it in a speech last month , ” the editorial said .
Klobuchar was described as “ the very definition ” of midwestern charisma and grit .
“ Ms Klobuchar speaks about issues like climate change , the narrowing middle class , gun safety and trade with an empathy that connects to voters ’ lived experiences , especially in the middle of the country , ” it said .
When mentioning another front-runner , the former vice president , Joe Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also noted his age , 77 , desire , and occasional gaffes .
“ It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders , ” the paper said , borrowing from President John Kennedy ’ s inaugural address .
The paper mentioned senator Bernie Sanders ’ age , 78 , “ serious concerns ” about his health , and his unwillingness to compromise .
The paper praised another of the front-runners , 38-year-old Pete Buttigieg , former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future ” .
The editorial ends with : “ May the best woman win.
” The newspaper changed its approach to presidential endorsements this year , airing footage of candidate interviews and details about the endorsement process on a special edition of The Weekly , the FX network series about the Times .
In previous election years it has often chosen a candidate popular with the party establishment .
It endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary in 2016 and over a charismatic but unproven newcomer , Barack Obama , in 2008 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in 2000 chose Al Gore .
Each time it chose a candidate who was popular with the Democratic establishment and , except for 2008 , the eventual nominee .

Breaking with established tradition, the New York Times has endorsed two Democratic presidential candidates for the party’s 2020 nomination to fight Donald Trump for the White House – Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
The move offers a powerful but two-track vision for the political direction of the US in a moment of deep division between and within parties and voter communities.
“May the best woman win,” the paper said in an unprecedented two-page editorial with large portraits of the two women.
The dual choices of the Massachusetts progressive Warren and the Minnesota centrist Klobuchar speak to what the paper called “an essential debate … under way between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation”.
But rather than looking for differences between Warren, Klobuchar or other Democrats in the contest, the newspaper said, the endorsement was informed by the “striking” similarity of their election platforms on fundamental issues.
“Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration,” the Times said. “If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.”
Klobuchar called the endorsement “an honor” in a tweet, while Warren – referring to her argument in the most recent Democratic debate – said: “So, I guess, Amy Klobuchar and I are now both undefeated in elections and undefeated in New York Times endorsements!”
But the paper acknowledged that “some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left wing of the Democratic party” while adding that “we worry about ideological rigidity and overreach”.
“There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth,” it wrote.
Compared with Donald Trump, “nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like healthcare, the economy and government spending. Where the Democratic candidates differ most significantly is not the what but the how.”
That question, in turn, rests on an interpretation of the Trump presidency, and whether it represents a political aberration that can be reversed, or the should be viewed as a product of “rotten” political and economic systems that require fundamental reform.
Trump, the Times said, was clear in his agenda: the “veneration of a mythological past” informed by unchallenged hierarchy of “white nativism” and “America first unilateralism”, an escalation of cultural conflict, corruption and judiciary “stacked with ideologues”.
“The events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists,” the editorial board said.
The board called Warren “a gifted storyteller” who speaks “elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans”, and offers “an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassert its historic ideals like fairness, generosity and equality”.
But, the paper warned, while US capitalism is responsible for its share of problems, “Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole”.
“The country needs a more unifying path,” the paper concluded
A preview of tomorrow’s print page. pic.twitter.com/LyC4EnQUdh — Kathleen Kingsbury (@katiekings) January 20, 2020
In co-selecting Klobuchar, “the very definition of midwestern charisma, grit and stick-to-it-iveness”, the paper acknowledged the senator’s reputation for treating staff harshly but said “her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a dealmaker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party – and perhaps the nation”.
“Klobuchar speaks about issues like climate change, the narrowing middle class, gun safety and trade with an empathy that connects to voters’ lived experiences, especially in the middle of the country,” it added.
But the paper rejected endorsing Bernie Sanders on grounds that he would be 79 when he assumed office and “his health is a serious concern” after a heart attack in October. Moreover, it questioned his approach to politics and his perceived rejection of compromise.
The Times’ cruelest blow was delivered to polling frontrunner and former vice-president Joe Biden, calling his lead “a measure of familiarity as much as voter intention” while adding that his safe approach “will not get America where it needs to go as a society. What’s more, Mr Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”


theguardian--2020-01-20--Guantánamo: psychologists who designed CIA torture program to testify

The two psychologists who designed the US “ enhanced interrogation ” programme that included waterboarding and other forms of torture , are due to give evidence in open court for the first time this week .
James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen will answer questions at a pre-trial hearing on the 9/11 attacks before a military tribunal in Guantánamo Bay .
Lawyers for the defendants , who are among 40 detainees being held at prison camp on the island of Cuba say it will be a unique opportunity to hold to account those responsible for approving and carrying out the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the CIA and FBI were complicit in torture , with significant implications for any future trial of suspected 9/11 plotters .
Mitchell and Jessen , were former air force psychologists who were tasked by the CIA in 2002 to establish a programme of severe interrogation techniques .
They were paid $ 1,800 a day and in 2005 they set up a private company , which provided most of the interrogators and most of the security staff at the ‘ black sites ’ , secret detention facilities .
The company was paid $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was terminated in 2009 .
“ The perverse ‘ work ’ of these psychologists has dramatically set back the global fight against torture .
The interrogation methods they championed have had a rippling effect around the world , ” said Julia Hall , a human rights lawyer with Amnesty International who is attending the hearings .
The American Pyschology Association has disowned Mitchell and Jessen for “ violating the ethics of their profession and leaving a stain on the discipline of psychology ” .
But both men have insisted they did nothing wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things that were declared legal by the George W Bush administration , and that they had to prevent the worst excesses of other interrogators .
Defence lawyers and human rights advocates hope Mitchell and Jessen will cast more light on the scale of the torture programme , the culpability of senior officials and the role of the FBI , which has hitherto presented itself as uninvolved .
“ The main points that I will be asking the witnesses about are the deep involvement of the FBI in the rendition detention and interrogation program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support the use of coercive pressure as an interrogation tactic , and the elements of the CIA ’ s programme that didn ’ t involve Dr Mitchell and Dr Jessen at all , ” said James Connell , lawyer for one of the defendants , Ammar al-Baluchi , who will lead the questioning of Mitchell this week .
“ There are many other people who are involved.
” Alka Pradhan , another Baluchi lawyer who will take the lead in questioning Jessen said the coming session was “ probably one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in eight years of pre-trial hearings .
At the core of the prosecution case are a set of statements made by the defendants in 2007 to FBI investigators .
The government contends that this was a “ clean team ” of investigators who had nothing to do with torture .
The statements were therefore untainted and admissible in court .
Pradhan said the Mitchell and Jessen testimony would add to already considerable evidence that the FBI also had dirty hands .
“ They knew that they needed “ clean interrogations ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually execute , ” she said .
The defence lawyers say there were FBI agents at the black sites during enhanced interrogations and that the FBI submitted questions for the interrogators to use , knowing torture was being used .
This week ’ s hearing has been complicated by a new set of secrecy rules introduced by the prosecution on Thursday , that prevents defence lawyers from citing references to the interrogation programme in published books , even though they had been cleared for publication by the CIA .
On the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cite more details of dates , places and techniques used on detainees .
The CIA has acknowledged that at least 39 prisoners were subjected to the enhanced interrogation techniques that included slamming detainees into a wall , confining them in a 21x 30in ( 53x 76cm ) box , and waterboarding , the simulation of drowning by covering a prisoner ’ s face with cloth and pouring water on it .
The UN and human rights groups have declared waterboarding and some of the other techniques to be torture .
Defence and prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other procedural issues in closed session at the military commission built on the Guantánamo naval base near the detention camp .
Then the presiding judge , Colonel Shane Cohen , is expected to hold open sessions for at least some of the next two weeks .
Mitchell and Jessen agreed an out of court settlement in a civil suit brought by the American Council on Civil Liberties on behalf of Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ben Soud , who were released without charges after being tortured , and the family of Gul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2002 in one of the CIA ’ s secret detention facilities around the world , known as “ black sites ” .
Rahman died after being left shackled overnight naked from the waist down in a freezing concrete cell .
Mitchell and Jessen said they had complained about Rahman ’ s treatment but their warnings were ignored by senior CIA officials .
The psychologists said their interrogation programme had been designed to induce a “ learned helplessness ” in detainees that would make them more compliant .
Mitchell wrote a memoir , Enhanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enhanced interrogation techniques helped foil al-Qaida attacks on the US .
“ I concluded that it would be immoral and unethical to ignore my obligation to use what I knew to defend our citizens and our way of life against enemies who themselves had initiated the conflict and whose stated goal was to destroy us , ” Mitchell wrote .
His claims over the programme ’ s success is disputed by a report by the Senate intelligence committee , which found that the enhanced interrogations produced no actionable intelligence .

The two psychologists who designed the US “enhanced interrogation” programme that included waterboarding and other forms of torture are due to give evidence in open court for the first time this week.
James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen will answer questions at a pre-trial hearing on the 9/11 attacks before a military tribunal in Guantánamo Bay.
Lawyers for the defendants, who are among 40 detainees being held at prison camp on the island of Cuba, say it will be a unique opportunity to hold to account those responsible for approving and carrying out the use of torture, and to demonstrate that both the CIA and FBI were complicit in torture, with significant implications for any future trial of suspected 9/11 plotters.
Mitchell and Jessen were former air force psychologists who were tasked by the CIA in 2002 to establish a programme of severe interrogation techniques. They were paid $1,800 a day and in 2005 they set up a private company, which provided most of the interrogators and most of the security staff at the “black sites”, secret detention facilities. The company was paid $81m for its services before its contract was terminated in 2009.
“The perverse ‘work’ of these psychologists has dramatically set back the global fight against torture. The interrogation methods they championed have had a rippling effect around the world,” said Julia Hall, a human rights lawyer with Amnesty International who is attending the hearings.
The American Psychological Association has disowned Mitchell and Jessen for “violating the ethics of their profession and leaving a stain on the discipline of psychology”.
But both men have insisted they did nothing wrong, arguing they were asked to do things that were declared legal by the George W Bush administration, and that they had to prevent the worst excesses of other interrogators.
Defence lawyers and human rights advocates hope Mitchell and Jessen will cast more light on the scale of the torture programme, the culpability of senior officials and the role of the FBI, which has hitherto presented itself as uninvolved.
“The main points that I will be asking the witnesses about are the deep involvement of the FBI in the rendition detention and interrogation program, the huge bureaucracy that was necessary to support the use of coercive pressure as an interrogation tactic, and the elements of the CIA’s programme that didn’t involve Dr Mitchell and Dr Jessen at all,” said James Connell, lawyer for one of the defendants, Ammar al-Baluchi, who will lead the questioning of Mitchell this week. “There are many other people who are involved.”
Alka Pradhan, another Baluchi lawyer who will take the lead in questioning Jessen said the coming session was “probably one of the most consequential hearings we have had yet” in eight years of pre-trial hearings.
At the core of the prosecution case are a set of statements made by the defendants in 2007 to FBI investigators. The government contends that this was a “clean team” of investigators who had nothing to do with torture. The statements were therefore untainted and admissible in court.
Pradhan said the Mitchell and Jessen testimony would add to already considerable evidence that the FBI also had dirty hands.
“They knew that they needed ‘clean interrogations’ in order to be able to prosecute and eventually execute,” she said. The defence lawyers say there were FBI agents at the black sites during enhanced interrogations and that the FBI submitted questions for the interrogators to use, knowing torture was being used.
This week’s hearing has been complicated by a new set of secrecy rules introduced by the prosecution on Thursday, that prevents defence lawyers from citing references to the interrogation programme in published books, even though they had been cleared for publication by the CIA.
On the other hand, defence teams will be allowed to cite more details of dates, places and techniques used on detainees. The CIA has acknowledged that at least 39 prisoners were subjected to the enhanced interrogation techniques that included slamming detainees into a wall, confining them in a 21x30in (53x76cm) box, and waterboarding, the simulation of drowning by covering a prisoner’s face with cloth and pouring water on it. The UN and human rights groups have declared waterboarding and some of the other techniques to be torture.
Defence and prosecution lawyers are due to argue over classification and other procedural issues in closed session at the military commission built on the Guantánamo naval base near the detention camp.
Then the presiding judge, Col Shane Cohen, is expected to hold open sessions for at least some of the next two weeks.
Mitchell and Jessen agreed an out of court settlement in a civil suit brought by the American Council on Civil Liberties on behalf of Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ben Soud, who were released without charges after being tortured, and the family of Gul Rahman, who died under interrogation in 2002 in one of the CIA’s secret detention facilities around the world, known as “black sites”.
Rahman died after being left shackled overnight naked from the waist down in a freezing concrete cell. Mitchell and Jessen said they had complained about Rahman’s treatment but their warnings were ignored by senior CIA officials.
The psychologists said their interrogation programme had been designed to induce a “learned helplessness” in detainees that would make them more compliant. Mitchell wrote a memoir, Enhanced Interrogation, in which he claimed that the enhanced interrogation techniques helped foil al-Qaida attacks on the US.
“I concluded that it would be immoral and unethical to ignore my obligation to use what I knew to defend our citizens and our way of life against enemies who themselves had initiated the conflict and whose stated goal was to destroy us,” Mitchell wrote.
His claims over the programme’s success is disputed by a report by the Senate intelligence committee, which found that the enhanced interrogations produced no actionable intelligence.


theguardian--2020-01-20--‘Middle Class’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem – it makes him a weak candidate | Zephyr Teachout

Democrats are trying to choose a candidate to beat Donald Trump , the most corrupt president in history .
Some think nominating Joe Biden , a moderate white man who calls himself “ Middle Class ” Joe , makes sense .
But Biden has a big corruption problem and it makes him a weak candidate .
I know it seems crazy , but a lot of the voters we need – independents and people who might stay home – will look at Biden and Trump and say : “ They ’ re all dirty.
” It looks like “ Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of taking big contributions , then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans .
Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn ’ t being “ moderate ” .
It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe .
There are three clear examples .
First , Biden ’ s support for finance over working-class Americans .
His career was bankrolled by the credit card industry .
He delivered for it by spearheading a bankruptcy bill that made it harder for Americans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial crisis .
He not only authored and voted for that bill , he split with Barack Obama and led the battle to vote down Democratic amendments .
His explanations for carrying water for the credit card industry have changed over time .
They have never rung true .
The simplest explanation is the most likely : he did it for his donors .
At a fundraiser last year , Biden promised his Wall Street donors that “ nothing would fundamentally change ” for them if he became president .
Now the financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
It clearly thinks he ’ s going to be its friend if elected .
Most Americans , who get ripped off by the financial sector on a daily basis , aren ’ t looking for a candidate who has made their life harder .
Second , healthcare .
On 25 April , the day he announced his campaign , Biden went straight to a fundraiser co-hosted by the chief executive of a major health insurance corporation .
He refuses to sign a pledge to reject money from insurance and pharma execs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry donors .
His campaign is being bankrolled by a super Pac run by healthcare lobbyists .
What did all these donors get ?
A healthcare proposal that preserves the power of the insurance industry and leaves 10 million Americans uninsured .
Third , climate change .
Biden signed a pledge not to take money from the fossil fuel industry , then broke his promise .
Right after a CNN town hall on climate change , he held a fundraiser hosted by the founder of a fossil fuel conglomerate .
He is pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from several leading environmental groups .
There are plenty of other examples that raise questions , like housing and social security .
Big real estate moguls are playing a major role in Biden ’ s campaign .
Unlike his rivals , he has no comprehensive housing plan .
When he pushed for cuts to Social Security , was he serving donors or his constituents ?
I can already hear the howls : But look at Trump !
Trump is 1,000 times worse !
You don ’ t need to convince me .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting against corruption , and in America I have never seen anything like the current administration .
In the last three years , I have made combatting Trump ’ s corruption the heart of my work .
I was on the first lawsuit against him for corrupt constitutional violations and I ran for attorney general in New York on a platform of pointing out just how dangerous he is , and how important unused state laws are to stopping him .
My work on corruption was cited in the House judiciary committee ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the thing : nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump .
It will allow Trump to muddy the water , to once again pretend he is the one “ draining the swamp ” , running against Washington culture .
Trump and the Cambridge Analytica of 2020 will campaign , as they did in 2016 , on a message of radical nihilism : everybody lies , everybody is corrupt , nothing matters , there is no truth .
Corrupt politicians always use whataboutism .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whataboutism playbook .
The comparison won ’ t be fair , but if you think he won ’ t use Biden ’ s closeness to donors as a cudgel to try to keep people home , you haven ’ t been paying attention .
Unlike Democrats , who must give voters a reason to come out , Trump doesn ’ t need voters to love him .
He just needs to convince people the whole game is ugly .
Whether or not Biden is making choices to please donors , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , grossly corrupt culture in Washington that long precedes Trump .
We can not allow Trump to so lower our standards that we aren ’ t even allowed to call out that culture , which has not only stymied progress but also harmed the Democratic party .
The good news is that we still have time to break with this culture of corruption .
We don ’ t have to choose Biden ’ s way , which would give Trump a perfect foil .
The 2020 election should be about a crystal clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and integrity , compassion and cruelty .
We have a rare opportunity to end a larger culture of corruption and we should take it – we will regret it if we don ’ t .
• None Zephyr Teachout , an associate professor at Fordham Law School , is the author of Corruption in America : From Ben Franklin ’ s Snuff Box to Citizens United .
Her next book is Break ’ Em Up : Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag , Big Tech , and Big Money .
She has endorsed @ @ @ @ @

Democrats are trying to choose a candidate to beat Donald Trump, the most corrupt president in history. Some think nominating Joe Biden, a moderate white man who calls himself “Middle Class” Joe, makes sense.
But Biden has a big corruption problem and it makes him a weak candidate. I know it seems crazy, but a lot of the voters we need – independents and people who might stay home – will look at Biden and Trump and say: “They’re all dirty.”
It looks like “Middle Class” Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans. Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn’t being “moderate”. It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe.
There are three clear examples.
First, Biden’s support for finance over working-class Americans. His career was bankrolled by the credit card industry. He delivered for it by spearheading a bankruptcy bill that made it harder for Americans to reduce their debts and helped cause the financial crisis. He not only authored and voted for that bill, he split with Barack Obama and led the battle to vote down Democratic amendments.
His explanations for carrying water for the credit card industry have changed over time. They have never rung true.
Nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump
The simplest explanation is the most likely: he did it for his donors. At a fundraiser last year, Biden promised his Wall Street donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” for them if he became president. Now the financial world is raising huge money for his campaign. It clearly thinks he’s going to be its friend if elected. Most Americans, who get ripped off by the financial sector on a daily basis, aren’t looking for a candidate who has made their life harder.
Second, healthcare. On 25 April, the day he announced his campaign, Biden went straight to a fundraiser co-hosted by the chief executive of a major health insurance corporation. He refuses to sign a pledge to reject money from insurance and pharma execs and continues to raise money from healthcare industry donors. His campaign is being bankrolled by a super Pac run by healthcare lobbyists.
What did all these donors get? A healthcare proposal that preserves the power of the insurance industry and leaves 10 million Americans uninsured.
Third, climate change. Biden signed a pledge not to take money from the fossil fuel industry, then broke his promise. Right after a CNN town hall on climate change, he held a fundraiser hosted by the founder of a fossil fuel conglomerate. He is pushing climate policy that has gotten dismal reviews from several leading environmental groups.
There are plenty of other examples that raise questions, like housing and social security. Big real estate moguls are playing a major role in Biden’s campaign. Unlike his rivals, he has no comprehensive housing plan. When he pushed for cuts to Social Security, was he serving donors or his constituents?
I can already hear the howls: But look at Trump! Trump is 1,000 times worse!
You don’t need to convince me. I have spent my life writing about and fighting against corruption, and in America I have never seen anything like the current administration. In the last three years, I have made combatting Trump’s corruption the heart of my work.
I was on the first lawsuit against him for corrupt constitutional violations and I ran for attorney general in New York on a platform of pointing out just how dangerous he is, and how important unused state laws are to stopping him. My work on corruption was cited in the House judiciary committee’s report on impeachment.
2020 should be about a crystal clear contrast between truth and lies, corruption and integrity, compassion and cruelty
But here’s the thing: nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump. It will allow Trump to muddy the water, to once again pretend he is the one “draining the swamp”, running against Washington culture. Trump and the Cambridge Analytica of 2020 will campaign, as they did in 2016, on a message of radical nihilism: everybody lies, everybody is corrupt, nothing matters, there is no truth.
Corrupt politicians always use whataboutism. With Biden, we are basically handing Trump a whataboutism playbook. The comparison won’t be fair, but if you think he won’t use Biden’s closeness to donors as a cudgel to try to keep people home, you haven’t been paying attention. Unlike Democrats, who must give voters a reason to come out, Trump doesn’t need voters to love him. He just needs to convince people the whole game is ugly.
Whether or not Biden is making choices to please donors, there is no doubt his record represents the transactional, grossly corrupt culture in Washington that long precedes Trump. We cannot allow Trump to so lower our standards that we aren’t even allowed to call out that culture, which has not only stymied progress but also harmed the Democratic party.
The good news is that we still have time to break with this culture of corruption. We don’t have to choose Biden’s way, which would give Trump a perfect foil. The 2020 election should be about a crystal clear contrast between truth and lies, corruption and integrity, compassion and cruelty.
We have a rare opportunity to end a larger culture of corruption and we should take it – we will regret it if we don’t.


theguardian--2020-01-20--Big oil is the new big tobacco - and Congress must use its power to investigate | Naomi Oreskes and

Big oil is the new big tobacco - and Congress must use its power to investigate | Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran

Greta Thunberg summed up 2019 in five words : “ Our house is on fire.
” In Australia , this is now literally the case .
Wildfires there have been raging for more than a month and now span an area larger than Switzerland .
The situation bears all the hallmarks of a hot new world : lives lost , livelihoods ruined and species pushed towards extinction , accompanied by government inaction , industry PR spin , abetting rightwing echo chambers , and taxpayers footing the multibillion-dollar bill .
Insanely , the Australian government remains in denial – ignoring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to coal .
The fossil fuel industry , meanwhile , is busy greenwashing and gaslighting : Chevron is boasting about its $ 1m donation – 0.00667 % of its annual earnings – to the Australian Red Cross , and Exxon Australia just wants everyone to “ Stay safe and have fun ” .
All this is set to a backdrop of mutually reinforcing rightwing new outlets , online bots and trolls , which are distracting and misinforming the public about the science and politics of climate-catalyzed fires .
The charity of everyday people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet the disaster has been inspiring and essential .
Yet , tragically , it also unintentionally serves to reinforce the false narrative , perpetuated by fossil fuel propagandists , that we are all equally to blame .
In reality , today ’ s climate chaos is big oil ’ s legacy , not ours .
Unlike the rest of us , the fossil fuel industry saw this climate chaos coming , then literally and figuratively added fuel to the fire , doubling down on a business model incompatible with the science of stopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and building a global climate denial and delay machine that has confused the public and fomented distrust of science , media and government .
In October last year , the US Congress began to investigate this history .
Before a packed audience at a congressional subcommittee hearing titled Examining the Oil Industry ’ s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change , the Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned the climate scientist Dr Martin Hoffert about his collaborative research with Exxon in the 1980s .
“ So in 1982 , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company memo containing a graph of global carbon dioxide and temperature levels rising over time , “ 1982 – seven years before I was even born – Exxon accurately predicted that by this year , 2019 , the Earth would hit a carbon dioxide concentration of 415 parts per million and a temperature increase of 1C .
Dr Hoffert , is that correct ?
” “ We were excellent scientists , ” answered the former New York University physics professor , triggering laughter from the audience .
“ Yes , you were ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congresswoman agreed .
“ So they knew.
” This was the first time that Congress – indeed , any legislative body in the world – had heard a firsthand account – from someone who was actually involved in the work – of just how much , and how early , the fossil fuel industry knew of the potential global warming dangers of its products .
The event showed how effective such hearings can be .
In the space of a couple of hours , expert witness testimony ( including by one of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence entered the congressional record .
Masterful questioning helped translate a key whistleblower ’ s knowledge into a viral C-Span moment .
It was just one hearing , but it had the makings of the tobacco industry investigations led by Representative Henry Waxman in the 1990s .
He could just as easily have been speaking about fossil fuels when he described the purpose of that congressional oversight : “ To build a public record and eventually create enough momentum in Congress and among the American public for legislation.
” Our message to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels is this : keep going .
Because big oil is the new big tobacco .
Investigative journalism and peer-reviewed research , including our own , clearly demonstrate that the fossil fuel regime has deliberately denied Americans and Congress their right to be accurately informed about the climate crisis , just as tobacco companies misled Americans about the harms of smoking .
From strategy to networks to personnel to rhetoric , the fossil fuel regime ’ s efforts to deny and delay come straight out of big tobacco ’ s playbook .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summarize in a recent report , the fossil fuel industry ’ s own internal documents reveal that it has been studying CO pollution for more than 60 years .
As early as the 1950s , it knew its products had the potential to change the climate .
By the late 1970s and early 80s , Exxon scientists were explicitly aware that burning fossil fuels could lead to what they called “ catastrophic ” global warming .
In 1986 , an internal “ greenhouse effect working group ” at Shell concluded : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest in recorded history.
” But instead of taking action or warning the public , fossil fuel interests stayed quiet .
Then , in the late 1980s and early 90s , when global warming finally caught the world ’ s attention , the carbon majors sprang to action and took the low road , spending billions of dollars over the next 30 years on advertising and lobbying challenging science , slandering scientists and attacking policies to protect their profits .
In so doing , they have undermined – and continue to undermine – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stable future .
Today , the case for subterfuge is so strong that New York , Massachusetts , Rhode Island and 14 US cities and counties have variously sued ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for fraud , damages or denial .
Maui and Honolulu have recently added their intentions to file lawsuits .
In Australia , there are mounting calls to make polluters , not just taxpayers , pay for wildfire relief and climate mitigation .
For all the skeletons we have already found in big oil ’ s closet , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the keyhole .
Tracking down a few hundred documents has allowed us to uncover some key cogs in the climate denial machine .
Yet it is a sprawling , well-funded , well-oiled network that stretches far beyond ExxonMobil and the Kochs : a labyrinth of people and money connecting fossil fuel companies , utilities , ancillary manufacturers , trade associations , PR firms , advertising agencies , libertarian foundations , thinktanks , legal firms and individuals , all feeding an echo chamber of pundits , astroturf groups , blogs , media and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified at least 4,556 individuals and 164 organizations in the global web of denial .
We believe the American public deserve to know the truth – and see the receipts – of these dealings that have already led to deaths , destruction and the injustices of a collapsing climate .
This is where congressional authority to request documents and , if necessary , issue subpoenas , comes in .
Key breakthroughs in tobacco control came as congressional investigations – as well as legal discovery and industry whistleblowers – exposed thousands , and ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tobacco industry was found guilty of racketeering in part because of the ways that individual companies had coordinated with each other and with third-party allies to present false information to consumers .
That history is a precedent for Congress to investigate an industry network that has misled the public and policymakers in an effort to deny the dangers of its products and derail regulation .
As the congressional scholar Morton Rosenberg recently testified in the Senate : “ Congress and its committees have virtually plenary power to compel production of information needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not politicians or political strategists , so we do not presume to dictate how Congress exercises its investigatory powers .
But as experts in the history of climate denial and global warming politics , it is our opinion that holding the fossil fuel industry accountable would be one of the most impactful ways for Congress – and governments around the world – to combat the climate crisis .
Impeachment investigations understandably occupy much attention .
Unfortunately , irreversible global warming and the fossil fuel regime underwriting it will be even harder to unseat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not on our side .
Naomi Oreskes is professor of the history of science at Harvard University and the co-author , with Erik M Conway , of Merchants of Doubt and The Collapse of Western Civilization Geoffrey Supran is a research associate in the department of the history of science at Harvard University , where he investigates the tactics of fossil fuel interests .
He previously co-led the fossil fuel divestment campaign at MIT , as well as the first major scientist protests against the Trump administration

Greta Thunberg summed up 2019 in five words: “Our house is on fire.” In Australia, this is now literally the case.
Wildfires there have been raging for more than a month and now span an area larger than Switzerland. The situation bears all the hallmarks of a hot new world: lives lost, livelihoods ruined and species pushed towards extinction, accompanied by government inaction, industry PR spin, abetting rightwing echo chambers, and taxpayers footing the multibillion-dollar bill.
Insanely, the Australian government remains in denial – ignoring the science, downplaying the seriousness and subservient to coal. The fossil fuel industry, meanwhile, is busy greenwashing and gaslighting: Chevron is boasting about its $1m donation – 0.00667% of its annual earnings – to the Australian Red Cross, and Exxon Australia just wants everyone to “Stay safe and have fun”. All this is set to a backdrop of mutually reinforcing rightwing new outlets, online bots and trolls, which are distracting and misinforming the public about the science and politics of climate-catalyzed fires.
The charity of everyday people (and some celebrities) rising to meet the disaster has been inspiring and essential. Yet, tragically, it also unintentionally serves to reinforce the false narrative, perpetuated by fossil fuel propagandists, that we are all equally to blame.
In reality, today’s climate chaos is big oil’s legacy, not ours. Unlike the rest of us, the fossil fuel industry saw this climate chaos coming, then literally and figuratively added fuel to the fire, doubling down on a business model incompatible with the science of stopping global warming; buying political inaction; and building a global climate denial and delay machine that has confused the public and fomented distrust of science, media and government.
In October last year, the US Congress began to investigate this history. Before a packed audience at a congressional subcommittee hearing titled Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change, the Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned the climate scientist Dr Martin Hoffert about his collaborative research with Exxon in the 1980s.
01:24 'So they knew': Ocasio-Cortez questions Exxon scientist on climate crisis denial – video
“So in 1982,” she said, referring to a recently uncovered internal company memo containing a graph of global carbon dioxide and temperature levels rising over time, “1982 – seven years before I was even born – Exxon accurately predicted that by this year, 2019, the Earth would hit a carbon dioxide concentration of 415 parts per million and a temperature increase of 1C. Dr Hoffert, is that correct?”
“We were excellent scientists,” answered the former New York University physics professor, triggering laughter from the audience.
“Yes, you were; yes, you were,” the congresswoman agreed. “So they knew.”
This was the first time that Congress – indeed, any legislative body in the world – had heard a firsthand account – from someone who was actually involved in the work – of just how much, and how early, the fossil fuel industry knew of the potential global warming dangers of its products.
The event showed how effective such hearings can be. In the space of a couple of hours, expert witness testimony (including by one of us) and thousands of pages of documented evidence entered the congressional record. Masterful questioning helped translate a key whistleblower’s knowledge into a viral C-Span moment.
It was just one hearing, but it had the makings of the tobacco industry investigations led by Representative Henry Waxman in the 1990s. He could just as easily have been speaking about fossil fuels when he described the purpose of that congressional oversight: “To build a public record and eventually create enough momentum in Congress and among the American public for legislation.”
Our message to Congress after its first foray into investigating fossil fuels is this: keep going. Because big oil is the new big tobacco.
Investigative journalism and peer-reviewed research, including our own, clearly demonstrate that the fossil fuel regime has deliberately denied Americans and Congress their right to be accurately informed about the climate crisis, just as tobacco companies misled Americans about the harms of smoking. From strategy to networks to personnel to rhetoric, the fossil fuel regime’s efforts to deny and delay come straight out of big tobacco’s playbook.
The historical record is incontrovertible. As we summarize in a recent report, the fossil fuel industry’s own internal documents reveal that it has been studying CO 2 pollution for more than 60 years. As early as the 1950s, it knew its products had the potential to change the climate. By the late 1970s and early 80s, Exxon scientists were explicitly aware that burning fossil fuels could lead to what they called “catastrophic” global warming. In 1986, an internal “greenhouse effect working group” at Shell concluded: “The changes in climate … may be the greatest in recorded history.”
For all the skeletons we have already found in big oil’s closet, we are still only looking through the keyhole
But instead of taking action or warning the public, fossil fuel interests stayed quiet. Then, in the late 1980s and early 90s, when global warming finally caught the world’s attention, the carbon majors sprang to action and took the low road, spending billions of dollars over the next 30 years on advertising and lobbying challenging science, slandering scientists and attacking policies to protect their profits. In so doing, they have undermined – and continue to undermine – Americans’ chances of a just and stable future.
Today, the case for subterfuge is so strong that New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and 14 US cities and counties have variously sued ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for fraud, damages or denial. Maui and Honolulu have recently added their intentions to file lawsuits. In Australia, there are mounting calls to make polluters, not just taxpayers, pay for wildfire relief and climate mitigation.
For all the skeletons we have already found in big oil’s closet, however, we are still only looking through the keyhole. Tracking down a few hundred documents has allowed us to uncover some key cogs in the climate denial machine. Yet it is a sprawling, well-funded, well-oiled network that stretches far beyond ExxonMobil and the Kochs: a labyrinth of people and money connecting fossil fuel companies, utilities, ancillary manufacturers, trade associations, PR firms, advertising agencies, libertarian foundations, thinktanks, legal firms and individuals, all feeding an echo chamber of pundits, astroturf groups, blogs, media and, yes, politicians. Network analysis has identified at least 4,556 individuals and 164 organizations in the global web of denial. We believe the American public deserve to know the truth – and see the receipts – of these dealings that have already led to deaths, destruction and the injustices of a collapsing climate.
This is where congressional authority to request documents and, if necessary, issue subpoenas, comes in. Key breakthroughs in tobacco control came as congressional investigations – as well as legal discovery and industry whistleblowers – exposed thousands, and ultimately millions, of damning documents. The tobacco industry was found guilty of racketeering in part because of the ways that individual companies had coordinated with each other and with third-party allies to present false information to consumers. That history is a precedent for Congress to investigate an industry network that has misled the public and policymakers in an effort to deny the dangers of its products and derail regulation.
As the congressional scholar Morton Rosenberg recently testified in the Senate: “Congress and its committees have virtually plenary power to compel production of information needed to discharge their legislative functions.”
We are not politicians or political strategists, so we do not presume to dictate how Congress exercises its investigatory powers. But as experts in the history of climate denial and global warming politics, it is our opinion that holding the fossil fuel industry accountable would be one of the most impactful ways for Congress – and governments around the world – to combat the climate crisis. Impeachment investigations understandably occupy much attention. Unfortunately, irreversible global warming and the fossil fuel regime underwriting it will be even harder to unseat than a president, and time is not on our side.