therealnews--2020-01-17--Trump’s Impeachment Trial Begins Next Week

Democrats are just one Republican vote short of allowing new witnesses into Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial–and new evidence might sway them .
The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins next week .
House Democrats introduced charges on Thursday , Jan.16 that Trump abused his powers and obstructed a congressional inquiry into his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son , Hunter .
Also on Thursday , the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) said the White House broke the law when it blocked congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president just as his impeachment trial gets underway .
The watchdog , which has no enforcement mechanism , said a temporary hold on $ 391 million of assistance placed by the White House ’ s Office of Management and Budget was “ not permitted , ” writing , “ faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.
” Democratic presidential candidates Sens .
Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to participate in the trial , sidelining them in the weeks ahead of the first primary contests of 2020 .
Some polls are showing Sanders and Warren as the leading candidates in the upcoming Iowa caucuses .
Democrats want to hear from witnesses who could have firsthand knowledge of Trump ’ s actions , including his former national security adviser John Bolton , who has offered to testify if subpoenaed .
Three Republican senators , Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , Lisa Murkowski ( AK ) , and Mitt Romney ( R-UT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing new witnesses in the Senate trial .
One more vote would still be needed to pass the motion , defying Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-AL ) .
Democrats hope new evidence of alleged impeachable crimes can sway Republicans into voting with them .
That includes phone records and other documents provided by Florida businessman Lev Parnas , an associate of Trump ’ s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani .
Giuliani says Parnas helped him investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
The Ukraine-born Parnas has pleaded not guilty to federal campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats said Parnas ’ phone included a screenshot of a previously undisclosed letter from Giuliani to then President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky , where the former New York mayor writes , “ In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent , I request a meeting with you.
” Parnas appeared on MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow show Wednesday and detailed the pressure campaign on Ukraine to announce a public investigation into the Bidens , on the instruction of Giuliani .
But others remain skeptical of Parnas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko rebutted his testimony , saying , “ Frankly , I have not spoken with [ Lev Parnas ] , and again , frankly , I don ’ t trust any word he is now saying.
” The Senate is expected to acquit Trump , keeping him in office , given that none of its 53 Republicans has voiced support for removing him , a step that under the U.S. Constitution would require a two-thirds majority .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to face an impeachment trial in U.S. history .
The previous trials of Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 both ended in acquittal .

By Jaisal Noor
Democrats are just one Republican vote short of allowing new witnesses into Donald Trump’s impeachment trial–and new evidence might sway them.
The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins next week. House Democrats introduced charges on Thursday, Jan.16 that Trump abused his powers and obstructed a congressional inquiry into his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
Also on Thursday, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the White House broke the law when it blocked congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine last summer, delivering a blow to the president just as his impeachment trial gets underway. The watchdog, which has no enforcement mechanism, said a temporary hold on $391 million of assistance placed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget was “not permitted,” writing, “faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”
Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will be required to participate in the trial, sidelining them in the weeks ahead of the first primary contests of 2020. Some polls are showing Sanders and Warren as the leading candidates in the upcoming Iowa caucuses.
Democrats want to hear from witnesses who could have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s actions, including his former national security adviser John Bolton, who has offered to testify if subpoenaed. Three Republican senators, Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Mitt Romney (R-UT), have indicated they may support allowing new witnesses in the Senate trial. One more vote would still be needed to pass the motion, defying Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-AL).
Democrats hope new evidence of alleged impeachable crimes can sway Republicans into voting with them. That includes phone records and other documents provided by Florida businessman Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani says Parnas helped him investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The Ukraine-born Parnas has pleaded not guilty to federal campaign finance violations in a separate criminal case. Democrats said Parnas’ phone included a screenshot of a previously undisclosed letter from Giuliani to then President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky, where the former New York mayor writes, “In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you.”
Parnas appeared on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show Wednesday and detailed the pressure campaign on Ukraine to announce a public investigation into the Bidens, on the instruction of Giuliani.
But others remain skeptical of Parnas’s recent statements. On CNN, Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko rebutted his testimony, saying, “Frankly, I have not spoken with [Lev Parnas], and again, frankly, I don’t trust any word he is now saying.”
The Senate is expected to acquit Trump, keeping him in office, given that none of its 53 Republicans has voiced support for removing him, a step that under the U.S. Constitution would require a two-thirds majority.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the trial. Trump is just the third president to face an impeachment trial in U.S. history. The previous trials of Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 both ended in acquittal.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-17--3 Arrested for Plans to Incite Violence at ‘Gun Rights’ Rally in Richmond

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Jaisal is currently the Democracy Initiative Manager at the Solutions Journalism Network and is a former TRNN host, producer, and reporter. He mainly grew up in the Baltimore area and studied modern history at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining TRNN, he contributed print, radio, and TV reports to Free Speech Radio News, Democracy Now! and The Indypendent. Jaisal's mother has taught in the Baltimore City Public School system for the past 25 years. Follow him on Twitter @jaisalnoor.


therealnews--2020-01-17--Phase One of US-China Trade Deal Is Mostly Symbolic

GREG WILPERT : Welcome to The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
In the same week that the House of Representatives sent articles of impeachment to the Senate for his removal from office , President Trump was able to celebrate two trade-related victories .
First on Wednesday , the US and China signed a phase one trade deal , which takes a step back from the trade war between the two countries .
Then on Thursday , the US Senate overwhelmingly passed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement , the USMCA–or NAFTA 2.0 , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Trump had to say on Wednesday about the trade deal with China .
DONALD TRUMP : Today we take a momentous step , one that has never been taken before with China , toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade as we signed phase one of the historic trade deal between the United States and China .
Together , we are righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers , farmers and families .
Our negotiations were tough , honest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this really incredible breakthrough .
Most people thought this could never happen , it should ’ ve happened 25 years ago by the way , but that ’ s okay .
GREG WILPERT : The phase one US-China trade deal commits China to buying an additional $ 200 billion worth of US goods by 2021 and helps open up China ’ s markets and biotechnology , beef and poultry , banking , insurance , drugs , and the energy industry .
Also , it obliges China to no longer require American companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doing business there .
This last point had been a major issue in the negotiations .
However , US tariffs on $ 360 billion worth of Chinese imports remained in place .
That ’ s 65 % of Chinese imports .
Also , China will maintain tariffs on 57 % of US exports to China in retaliation .
The Trump administration says that the US tariffs are necessary in order to ensure leverage for phase two of the trade negotiations , which might not take place until next year after the elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion of the first phase of the US-China trade agreement is Nicole Aschoff .
She ’ s a sociologist ; writer and editor at Jacobin Magazine , where she has written on trade issues .
Her most recent book is The Smartphone Society : Technology , Power , and Resistance in the New Gilded Age , which will be out in March with Beacon Press .
Thanks for joining us , Nicole .
NICOLE ASCHOFF : Thanks for having me .
GREG WILPERT : So it seems that Trump has achieved two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal ; that is to reduce the US trade deficit with China and to strengthen US companies ’ intellectual property rights in China .
But he hasn ’ t really dealt with the third main issue yet , which was to reduce China ’ s industrial policy of subsidies .
So all in all , who would you say wins and loses in this deal as it has been assigned so far ?
NICOLE ASCHOFF : Well , I think if we think about the significance of this trade deal , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pause in this larger geopolitical restructuring between the US and China are pretty accurate .
I don ’ t see this as a dramatic shift from sort of where we ’ re going .
And we ’ re really in a very different position than we were , for example , two years ago ; both in terms of tariffs but also a broader kind of political rethinking of the relationship between the US and China .
As far as the winners and losers , certainly when Trump was bragging about the deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street–bankers and also oil executives–as the people who would benefit , I think he made it very clear who will be benefiting most from this trade deal .
And the idea that American working people are going to be the primary beneficiaries , I think is inaccurate .
GREG WILPERT : So it seems that to a large extent the deal is more symbolic than anything else .
China ’ s commitments are not exactly binding , also .
And the effort to reverse China ’ s industrial policies seems unlikely to succeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese economic development .
The economist Ha-Joon Chang once called the US policy one of quote , “ Taking away the ladder , ” meaning that the US once advanced its own industrial policy and development policies with a strong state intervention in the economy .
But once it has succeeded and gotten ahead , it tries to force the rest of the world to adopt neoliberal policies with less state intervention .
Would you say that that ’ s kind of an accurate description of what ’ s going on here ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the United States and the EU are very critical of China for subsidizing its own industries , but China has been incredibly successful in this regard , and over the past few decades has overtaken the US in terms of trade supremacy , and it ’ s now the leading or exporter to most countries in the world .
So the idea that China will completely revamp its industrial policy as a result of this trade agreement or some future agreement , maybe the next phase , is pretty unlikely , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what would you say would a better US-China policy look like ?
I mean , who would benefit from it and how would it be structured ?
NICOLE ASCHOFF : I think part of the challenge is that we think about trade as the primary goal , and then hope that a good trade policy will result in good jobs trickling down to American workers .
And I think that we have to reconsider the order of our priorities and not expect trade policies to deliver the kinds of jobs and livelihoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working people .
So I think part of the challenge is rethinking the relationship of trade to the kinds of progressive economic policies that we want and not putting trade as the kind of be all , end all of where we want to go , but rather to use trade or to consider trade as a kind of supportive role rather than hoping that these kind of trickled down trade policies will result in good jobs for working people .
GREG WILPERT : Can we dig a little bit deeper on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things would be prioritized in a better trade deal and how would that look , as an example , once it ’ s implemented ?
NICOLE ASCHOFF : Well , so if we want it to work within the existing kind of framework , certainly we would need to emphasize the lumen climate crisis .
Right ?
And to actually lock in some agreements between countries to limit their emissions .
And that ’ s certainly not on the table ; either with regard to this phase one deal with China or with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we ’ re thinking about trade in a different way , in a radically different way , we ’ ll have to start imagining industrial policy and a little bit of a different way .
The US and also the EU chastise China and say that China should follow the rules of the WTO .
Well , one of the main criticisms is that China is subsidizing its own industries .
But that ’ s not something that progressives should be opposed to .
If we ’ re thinking about rebuilding manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , there ’ s nothing wrong with a industrial policy that ’ s subsidized in infant industries or simply trying to create , if we ’ re thinking about the Green New Deal , for example , and retrofitting our housing stock , for example , in the United States , there ’ s nothing wrong with producing and manufacturing in sustainable ways here in the United States .
But in order to do that , we have to think about trade and industrial policy a little bit differently .
GREG WILPERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to leave it there for now .
In another segment , we ’ re going to take a closer look at the USMCA trade deal .
I was speaking to Nicole Aschoff , writer and editor at Jacobin Magazine .
Thanks again , Nicole , for having joined us today .
GREG WILPERT : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .

President Trump says his just-signed trade deal with China is unprecedented, but it’s mostly symbolic and has little to nothing to offer ordinary Americans, says Jocobin’s Nicole Aschoff.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
In the same week that the House of Representatives sent articles of impeachment to the Senate for his removal from office, President Trump was able to celebrate two trade-related victories. First on Wednesday, the US and China signed a phase one trade deal, which takes a step back from the trade war between the two countries. Then on Thursday, the US Senate overwhelmingly passed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA–or NAFTA 2.0, as some call it. Here’s what Trump had to say on Wednesday about the trade deal with China.
DONALD TRUMP: Today we take a momentous step, one that has never been taken before with China, toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade as we signed phase one of the historic trade deal between the United States and China. Together, we are righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers and families. Our negotiations were tough, honest, open, and respectful, leading us to this really incredible breakthrough. Most people thought this could never happen, it should’ve happened 25 years ago by the way, but that’s okay.
GREG WILPERT: The phase one US-China trade deal commits China to buying an additional $200 billion worth of US goods by 2021 and helps open up China’s markets and biotechnology, beef and poultry, banking, insurance, drugs, and the energy industry. Also, it obliges China to no longer require American companies to transfer their technology as a condition of doing business there. This last point had been a major issue in the negotiations. However, US tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese imports remained in place. That’s 65% of Chinese imports. Also, China will maintain tariffs on 57% of US exports to China in retaliation. The Trump administration says that the US tariffs are necessary in order to ensure leverage for phase two of the trade negotiations, which might not take place until next year after the elections.
Joining me now to discuss the conclusion of the first phase of the US-China trade agreement is Nicole Aschoff. She’s a sociologist; writer and editor at Jacobin Magazine, where she has written on trade issues. Her most recent book is The Smartphone Society: Technology, Power, and Resistance in the New Gilded Age, which will be out in March with Beacon Press. Thanks for joining us, Nicole.
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: So it seems that Trump has achieved two of his three main objectives in this trade deal; that is to reduce the US trade deficit with China and to strengthen US companies’ intellectual property rights in China. But he hasn’t really dealt with the third main issue yet, which was to reduce China’s industrial policy of subsidies. So all in all, who would you say wins and loses in this deal as it has been assigned so far?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Well, I think if we think about the significance of this trade deal, I think people who are describing it as a pause in this larger geopolitical restructuring between the US and China are pretty accurate. I don’t see this as a dramatic shift from sort of where we’re going. And we’re really in a very different position than we were, for example, two years ago; both in terms of tariffs but also a broader kind of political rethinking of the relationship between the US and China. As far as the winners and losers, certainly when Trump was bragging about the deal and calling out his friends on Wall Street–bankers and also oil executives–as the people who would benefit, I think he made it very clear who will be benefiting most from this trade deal. And the idea that American working people are going to be the primary beneficiaries, I think is inaccurate.
GREG WILPERT: So it seems that to a large extent the deal is more symbolic than anything else. China’s commitments are not exactly binding, also. And the effort to reverse China’s industrial policies seems unlikely to succeed, considering how important they are for Chinese economic development. The economist Ha-Joon Chang once called the US policy one of quote, “Taking away the ladder,” meaning that the US once advanced its own industrial policy and development policies with a strong state intervention in the economy. But once it has succeeded and gotten ahead, it tries to force the rest of the world to adopt neoliberal policies with less state intervention. Would you say that that’s kind of an accurate description of what’s going on here?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Absolutely. I think both the United States and the EU are very critical of China for subsidizing its own industries, but China has been incredibly successful in this regard, and over the past few decades has overtaken the US in terms of trade supremacy, and it’s now the leading or exporter to most countries in the world. So the idea that China will completely revamp its industrial policy as a result of this trade agreement or some future agreement, maybe the next phase, is pretty unlikely, in my opinion.
GREG WILPERT: Now, what would you say would a better US-China policy look like? I mean, who would benefit from it and how would it be structured?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: I think part of the challenge is that we think about trade as the primary goal, and then hope that a good trade policy will result in good jobs trickling down to American workers. And I think that we have to reconsider the order of our priorities and not expect trade policies to deliver the kinds of jobs and livelihoods that we want for regular, ordinary working people. So I think part of the challenge is rethinking the relationship of trade to the kinds of progressive economic policies that we want and not putting trade as the kind of be all, end all of where we want to go, but rather to use trade or to consider trade as a kind of supportive role rather than hoping that these kind of trickled down trade policies will result in good jobs for working people.
GREG WILPERT: Can we dig a little bit deeper on that? I mean, what kinds of things would be prioritized in a better trade deal and how would that look, as an example, once it’s implemented?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Well, so if we want it to work within the existing kind of framework, certainly we would need to emphasize the lumen climate crisis. Right? And to actually lock in some agreements between countries to limit their emissions. And that’s certainly not on the table; either with regard to this phase one deal with China or with the recently passed USMCA. But also if we’re thinking about trade in a different way, in a radically different way, we’ll have to start imagining industrial policy and a little bit of a different way. The US and also the EU chastise China and say that China should follow the rules of the WTO. Well, one of the main criticisms is that China is subsidizing its own industries. But that’s not something that progressives should be opposed to.
If we’re thinking about rebuilding manufacturing and rebuilding good jobs in the United States, there’s nothing wrong with a industrial policy that’s subsidized in infant industries or simply trying to create, if we’re thinking about the Green New Deal, for example, and retrofitting our housing stock, for example, in the United States, there’s nothing wrong with producing and manufacturing in sustainable ways here in the United States. But in order to do that, we have to think about trade and industrial policy a little bit differently.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now. In another segment, we’re going to take a closer look at the USMCA trade deal. I was speaking to Nicole Aschoff, writer and editor at Jacobin Magazine. Thanks again, Nicole, for having joined us today.
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden, Adam Coley
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Adam Coley, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-20--Bipartisan NAFTA 2.0 Is Still Fatally Flawed

Congress passed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) almost unanimously. It contains improvements over the original NAFTA, but still puts corporate interests over those of ordinary citizens, says Jacobin’s Nicole Aschoff.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
In the same week that impeachment articles were turned over for trial in the Senate, President Trump was able to celebrate two successes in the area of trade. First, on Wednesday, he signed a phase one trade deal with China, and then on Thursday the Senate overwhelmingly passed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, also known as the USMCA, or NAFTA 2.0. The USMCA passed with nearly bipartisan support in a vote of 89 to 10. The USMCA is a revision of a treaty that had first been presented last year and met substantial opposition back then.
Many Democrats and the AFL-CIO agreed to support this new version of the agreement because they said labor issues that had previously been left out of it are now in this new version. However, some Democrats continued to oppose it, such as Senator Kamala Harris of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Chuck Schumer of New York. They all said that one of the main problems is that the new deal does not take climate change into account. The key changes in the USMCA relative to the original NAFTA agreement that was passed in 1994, is that it eliminates the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which greatly favored corporations, and it also increases the requirement of North American content for cars and parts from 62.5% to 75%. Also it includes tougher standards for protecting labor rights in Mexico.
Joining me now to discuss the USMCA is Nicole Aschoff. She’s a sociologist, writer and editor at Jacobin magazine, where she has written on trade issues. Her most recent book is The Smartphone Society: Technology, Power and Resistance in the New Gilded Age, which will be out in March with Beacon Press. Thanks for joining us again, Nicole.
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: So just as we did in a segment with you on the U.S.-China trade deal, let’s start with who wins and loses in this USMCA deal. What would you say? Who wins and loses here?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Well, experts said that NAFTA 2.0 or the USMCA is 90% of the original NAFTA agreement. And that agreement was designed to benefit corporations. And I think we can say the same with this agreement as primarily going to benefit elites and giant corporations and is not going to help ordinary working people a whole lot.
GREG WILPERT: But what about these provisions that I mentioned in the introduction? For example, the requirement for a greater proportion of North American components increasing it from 62.5% to 75%? And the elimination of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision? Wouldn’t those benefit to an ordinary people?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Well, let’s talk about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement first. I think this is a genuinely positive development with the new agreement. So we can say that this is a good thing, particularly when it comes to a state’s ability to enact environmental regulations and to limit the behavior of corporations and the ability of corporations to basically do whatever they want in terms of investment in production. This is a positive thing. So this is a good thing. Now, how this is going to impact ordinary people moving forward, well this’ll depend on how social movements and grassroots environmental movements are able to organize and use it as a tool to rein in corporations.
Now, regarding the U.S. auto industry and the North American auto industry more broadly, this is a bit trickier and I think we’re not going to see the huge gains in terms of job numbers that are being touted certainly by the AFL-CIO. And one of the reasons why, is that if you look at the production footprint of the North American auto industry and how it’s evolved over the past few decades, it’s become very spread out and extremely integrated between Canada, the United States and Mexico. And while it’s certainly positive that the content requirements have been raised to 75%, this isn’t going to really result in dramatic shifts in terms of where parts are being produced, where cars are being assembled, and in particular, how many jobs are going to be created in the United States.
There was some talk about having domestic content requirements specific to the United States, which would have resulted in more auto jobs in the U.S., But that didn’t get passed. So the kinds of changes that auto companies are going to need to meet these new requirements are actually surprisingly minimal. And so I don’t think we’re going to see a huge increase in the number of jobs that are going to be created, particularly auto jobs in the United States, as a result of the USMCA.
GREG WILPERT: It’s interesting how this USMCA was able to pass almost with bipartisan support. Now there were only a handful of Democratic senators, 10 of them I believe, who voted against it. And as I mentioned earlier, they included Sanders, Harris and Schumer among others. Now, we’ve got a clip here from the most recent Democratic debate which highlighted the disagreement between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on this issue.
BERNIE SANDERS: This deal, and I think the proponents of it acknowledge, will result in the continuation of the loss of hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs as a result of outsourcing. NAFTA, PNTR with China, other trade agreements, were written for one reason alone, and that is to increase the profits of large multinational corporations.
ELIZABETH WARREN: I led the fight against the trade deal with Asia and the trade deal with Europe because they didn’t think it was in the interest of the American people. This new trade deal is a modest improvement. Senator Sanders himself has said so. It will give some relief to our farmers. It will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief. We try to help the people who need help. And we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal.
GREG WILPERT: I should note that other candidates on the debate stage also favor to vote in favor of the new USMCA. And Bernie Sanders was the only one who actually opposed it. Now, what do you make of their respective arguments with regard to the USMCA? Is it an improvement over NAFTA, and wouldn’t that actually justify a vote in its favor?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: I think it depends on how you view moving forward, and what kind of changes need to be put in place. I think that Sanders has the right position here, which is that if we make slight tweaks to the agreement, and we put it back and we put it in place, it just maintains this status quo of trade relationships in North America, and really blocks the moment him to make the big changes that we need to actually both create good jobs for working people and to address this looming climate crisis. If you make these small changes and say, “Well, this is good enough for now.” In reality, what you’re saying is, “This is the framework that we’re going to be operating for the future,” right?
We’re going to have to revisit the agreement in six years. But in reality, companies are breathing a huge sigh of relief and saying this is the deal that’s going to be in place. Because it’s so much work to actually create something different, right? And to actually gain the momentum to build a different kind of trade agreement. So I think Sanders is right here and that we have to take this opportunity, right? Where we’re actually talking about global inequality. We’re actually talking about the need to reconsider trade as a key issue, and to link it to climate change and build something radically different. Rather than just make small tweaks to the status quo.
GREG WILPERT: So following up on that, what would a more radically different North American trade treaty look like?
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Well, it would have to be designed thinking about the needs, not just of American workers, but also Canadian workers and Mexican workers. One of the defining features of NAFTA is that it was used by corporations to threaten workers in all three countries, to agree to concessions and to threaten them that they’re going to lose their job, that production will be moved to another place if they try to organize a union. And that hasn’t changed at all.
We really need to take away that threat, right? To not allow corporations to move production wherever they want, whenever it suits them. Because there are a lot of people who are impacted by production. It’s not just the shareholders who we have to be thinking of. It’s the stakeholders. And this is the same with the USMCA, companies can pick up and move wherever they want, no matter the impact that it has on the communities that they’re operating in.
So if we want to start talking about trade, we need to think about it in terms of what would it worker-centered trade look like, right? Which is something very different from giving companies these modest restrictions. But really allowing them total flexibility in organizing production and jobs in the way that they want. So if we want to move forward, both in terms of creating good jobs for people, and also doing something about the global climate crisis, we have to actually be willing to restrict the freedoms of corporations in favor of the freedoms of communities and working people.
GREG WILPERT: Okay, well we’re going to leave it there for now. In another segment with Nicole, we take a closer look at the U.S.-China trade deal. I was speaking to Nicole Aschoff, writer and editor at Jacobin magazine. Thanks again, Nicole for having joined us today.
NICOLE ASCHOFF: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden, Adam Coley
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Adam Coley, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-20--The Barber and the Rev

The Barber and the Rev

Host, The Marc Steiner Show
Marc Steiner is the host of "The Marc Steiner Show" on TRNN. He is a Peabody Award-winning journalist who has spent his life working on social justice issues. He walked his first picket line at age 13, and at age 16 became the youngest person in Maryland arrested at a civil rights protest during the Freedom Rides through Cambridge. As part of the Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, Marc helped organize poor white communities with the Young Patriots, the white Appalachian counterpart to the Black Panthers. Early in his career he counseled at-risk youth in therapeutic settings and founded a theater program in the Maryland State prison system. He also taught theater for 10 years at the Baltimore School for the Arts. From 1993-2018 Marc's signature “Marc Steiner Show” aired on Baltimore’s public radio airwaves, both WYPR—which Marc co-founded—and Morgan State University’s WEAA.
marc@therealnews.com
@marcsteiner


therealnews--2020-01-21--‘Our House Is Still on Fire,’ Warns Greta Thunberg at Davos

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-01-21--Climate Activists Sound Alarm on Mediterranean Natural Gas Pipelines

Steve Horn is a San Diego-based climate reporter and producer. He was also a reporter on a part-time basis for The Coast News—covering Escondido, San Marcos, and the San Diego North County region—from mid-2018 until early 2020.
Also a freelance investigative reporter, his work has appeared in The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, The Intercept, Vice News, Wisconsin Watch, and other publications. He worked from 2011-2018 for the climate news website DeSmog.com, a publication which investigates climate change disinformation and the fossil fuel industry influence campaigns.
His stories and research have received citation in a U.S. Senate report and mention in outlets such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, Bloomberg Businessweek, Mexico’s La Jornada, and The Colbert Report.
In his free time, Steve is a competitive distance runner, with a personal best time in the marathon of 2:43:04 and a 4:43 mile. He also has served on the film screening committee for the Heartland Film Festival in Indianapolis and serves on the screening committee for the San Diego International Film Festival.


therealnews--2020-01-23--Impeachment Trial Won’t Be Impartial and Won’t Convict Trump

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to the Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
Great to have you all with us .
Now , this impeachment trial seems unlike all others in our past .
All previous presidents who faced impeachment released documents .
I mean some were forced by the courts , but they released them .
Now , we have Trump refusing to turn over documents and we have McConnell , the president of the Senate , saying these kinds of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : We assume we ’ re going to see two articles of impeachment , both of them pretty weak stuff , and everything I do during this I ’ m coordinating with White House council .
There will be no difference between the president ’ s position and our position .
Marc Steiner : He makes no bones about the fact that he will not be impartial .
No impeachment by the House has ever moved this quickly .
It took 599 days for Nixon ’ s impeachment to begin after we first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days .
Andrew Johnson ’ s trial in the Senate took 11 weeks .
These House hearings move fast , but where is it going ?
Are the Democrats making the strongest case ?
Was it wise to do this legally or constitutionally the way it was done ?
Was this the strongest case possible to make ?
Will this make the argument that the Emolument Clause was the case to make ?
I ’ m not sure .
Where will this take us in our struggle to right the ship of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing white nationalists who are in power in the executive branch ?
Well we ’ re now joined by Marjorie Cohn , professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law , former president of the National Lawyers Guild , deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers , member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace .
Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing : Legal , Moral , and Geopolitical Issues .
Marjorie , welcome .
Good to have you with us here at the Real News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , Marc .
Marc Steiner : So listen , when you saw the Senate president speak the way he did , I mean there ’ s not even a pretense here of impartiality .
So I mean- Marjorie Cohn : No , there isn ’ t .
I ’ ve been a criminal defense attorney for many years and I have never seen a judge and a jury coordinate the trial closely with the defendant , declare that they ’ re not going to be impartial , and then announce an acquittal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It really makes a mockery of the whole proceeding , and this is the way Mitch McConnell has been playing hardball throughout the Trump administration .
We saw how he stole Merrick Garland ’ s Supreme Court seat , and he has the Republicans in the Senate and in the House walking in lockstep with him and the president .
Frank Rich said it best in a recent article .
He called them Vichy Republicans , Vichy being the French government during the Nazi occupation that was doing Hitler ’ s bidding .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Vichy Republicans .
I think we can expect an acquittal .
There is … During the pretrial motions yesterday on the first day of trial , to a person , the Republicans voted against the Democratic House manager ’ s motions to call for witnesses who were direct eye-witnesses to the abuse of power by Trump and to refuse to allow documents to be subpoenaed from the State Department , the White House , the Office of Management and Budget , and the Pentagon .
Now , during the impeachment inquiry in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented move , totally stonewalled the inquiry , refused to allow any witnesses to testify from the executive branch , and refused to turn over even one document even though the Constitution is very clear that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment .
It ’ s certainly not up to the president who is being impeached , who was impeached in the House , and is being tried in the Senate to decide what the procedure will be .
And yet , that ’ s how Trump has behaved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motions kept talking about , “ Oh , we have to protect executive privilege for future presidents.
” Well , actually , Marc , the president has never invoked executive privilege .
Executive privilege is a doctrine that protects certain internal executive branch communications from compelled disclosure , but that ’ s … So on a case by case basis , the president could say , “ That witness should not answer that question .
We ’ re asserting executive privilege , ” but Trump went way beyond that and said that witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity from civil and criminal liability , basically promising them immunity that does not exist .
This whole doctrine of absolute immunity has never been upheld by a court , and yet Trump used that and continues to use it in the Senate trial as a way to refuse to allow witnesses to testify or documents to be produced .
Now , nevertheless , 17 executive branch witnesses — and these are not Democrats , these are Trump administration people — testified to the committees in the House of Representatives and made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and obstruction of Congress , but we will see what happens in the Senate .
This is a very quick trial .
Mitch McConnell wants to get it over quickly , I ’ m sure coordinating closely with Trump who wants it over .
He wants to be able to announce his acquittal at his State of the Union address on February 4th , and McConnell is making sure that the testimony goes into the wee hours of the night to prevent the American people from seeing the incriminating evidence against Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can see through this , and 70 % of Americans want witnesses to be called .
I think that by having it on television … I remember during the Watergate hearings , people were riveted to the TV .
I think that that is going to cause even more people to turn against Trump .
Now , there are certain hard-line supporters of Trump , his base , and they ’ re not going to budge no matter what , but I do think that the manager ’ s presenting this case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as to the Senate , laying bare what Trump did , is going to be be very telling and ultimately may [ inaudible 00:06:31 ] to Trump ’ s detriment .
Marc Steiner : So there are a lot of questions here though .
I mean some people have argued and I ’ ve read a number of articles arguing that even taking whether than this can even … He ’ ll be convicted in the Senate .
Obviously we think he will not be convicted the Senate , but taking that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who argue that politically and constitutionally this was the weakest case they could have drawn .
Why didn ’ t they move on the Emoluments Clause ?
Why didn ’ t they move on to other parts of his behavior as president that might have been easier to kind of push ?
Is there [ inaudible 00:07:02 ] argument ?
Marjorie Cohn : Well there are a number of … Trump has been engaging in impeachable conduct throughout the three years of his presidency .
Marjorie Cohn : Robert Mueller identified 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an overly cautious move , didn ’ t conclude but basically kicked the ball to Congress for impeachment proceedings .
Those things could have come in .
Don McGahn , who has been ordered now by a court to testify in the Mueller investigation which has has been completed , but he ’ s a very incriminating witness against Trump and he could be called here to talk about how Trump tried to get him to fire Robert Mueller , the special counsel , and then cover it up .
The Emoluments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been raised , but I think that Nancy Pelosi held off on impeachment for a long time until the whistleblower complaint revealed what Trump was doing with basically blackmailing , strong-arming the president of Ukraine to announce spurious investigations of Trump ’ s political rivals in return for getting military assistance that Congress had already appropriated .
And when that happened , Nancy Pelosi , I think , saw a very clean case , airtight , easy to explain to the American people involving national security , and I think that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not sure that that was a mistake .
Certainly , they could have expanded the inquiry , but I think that they were gun shy after the Mueller investigation because Mueller was so timid in his conclusions because he did not think that a sitting president could be indicted .
That ’ s what the Department of Justice has always maintained .
And since Trump was throwing so much shade at the Mueller investigation , I think the Ukraine scandal is much easier for the American people to get their arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why they went with this for the impeachment .
Marc Steiner : It ’ s interesting that an NBC blogger before we went on the air , apparently he spoke yesterday on NBC .
Senator John Kennedy , who ’ s a Republican of Louisiana , said that that he thinks there ’ s colleagues [ inaudible 00:09:22 ] any intention at all .
The quote was , “ If you poll a Senator , nine out of 10 senators will tell you they have not read the transcript of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you.
” So they are hearing the prosecutor ’ s case for the first time and they are certainly hearing the president ’ s case for the first time .
I mean to me , that ’ s a pretty stunning statement for a United States Senator to make about his colleagues in his party on the verge of trying a President of the United States in an impeachment trial in the US Senate .
Marjorie Cohn : I agree , Marc .
I think it ’ s an outrage that these elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts .
The interesting thing about an impeachment trial is that all 100 senators are forced to sit quietly , not say a word for six days a week while the House managers make their case and the president ’ s defense team makes its case , and then the senators will be allowed to do some questioning , but they can ’ t have any cell phones .
They can daydream , but they have to sit there and listen to the evidence .
Probably many of them are hearing it for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they hear it .
Doesn ’ t mean that they ’ re going to change their minds .
They walk in lockstep with the president .
They ’ re good foot soldiers , but at least … And you wonder how , to a person , there is a total absence of conscience on the part of the Republican Congress members .
It ’ s just astounding , and I have to think that a number of them are watching their own backsides because if they break with the president , they know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lambast them and scream and yell and tweet and that might harm their chances for reelection .
But the lack of integrity among the Republican Congress members is stunning .
Marc Steiner : So I ’ m curious .
In your time as president of National Lawyers Guild , that ’ s an organization that deals with the state of our country constitutionally , but also is a very political organization .
So when you think about the work that the Lawyers Guild and others like the Lawyers Guild have done in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial as a constitutional crisis , but also look at it in terms of what it means politically in a struggle in this country in terms of how you define the country , who we are , what we ’ re going to become , where we ’ re going , how do you blend those two things in this particular case ?
Is this worth it in the political sense ?
Marjorie Cohn : Well I really think that the House of Representatives had no choice once the Ukraine scandal broke .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had any choice .
They had to go with impeachment and for the sake of the Constitution , for the sake of history really .
Now , does this take away from attention to problems like healthcare and education and racism , et cetera ?
Yes , it does and that ’ s unfortunate , but I think that Trump , who does so much damage to so many people in so many countries on so many levels , needs to be called out .
There ’ s no other way to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment proceeding .
Certainly , he could be defeated at the ballot box and that ’ s one of the things that his defense lawyers are arguing , that the impeachment process is trying to undo the results of an election and prevent him from and they should just wait and voters should vote him out if they don ’ t like what he ’ s doing .
But if that was the case , why would the founders put impeachment in the Constitution ?
The word impeachment appears six times in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a real danger of overreach by the executive of abuse of power where he would abuse his power for his own personal gain .
That ’ s why they put impeachment into the Constitution as a way to check and balance the executive .
So I think that ultimately there was no choice .
We had to have this impeachment .
Is it an ideal use of our time , knowing that he is going to be ultimately acquitted by the Senate , to watch these proceedings ?
Could our time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that what this does is to lay bare for all to see what Trump has really done here .
Marc Steiner : Marjorie Cohn , it ’ s a pleasure to talk with you .
I look forward to many more conversations around this .
I appreciate your writing and the work you ’ ve done .
Thank you very much for taking your time today with us here at the Real News .
Marjorie Cohn : Thanks so much , Marc .
I appreciate it .
Marc Steiner : My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here for the Real News Network .
Thank you all for joining us .
Let us know what you think .
Take care .

Legal scholar Marjorie Cohn says ‘Vichy Republicans’ are making a mockery of the constitutionally mandated impeachment process.
Story Transcript
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us.
Now, this impeachment trial seems unlike all others in our past. All previous presidents who faced impeachment released documents. I mean some were forced by the courts, but they released them. Now, we have Trump refusing to turn over documents and we have McConnell, the president of the Senate, saying these kinds of things. Check this out.
MITCH MCCONNELL: We assume we’re going to see two articles of impeachment, both of them pretty weak stuff, and everything I do during this I’m coordinating with White House council. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position.
MARC STEINER: He makes no bones about the fact that he will not be impartial. No impeachment by the House has ever moved this quickly. It took 599 days for Nixon’s impeachment to begin after we first learned about Watergate and Clinton took 280 days. Andrew Johnson’s trial in the Senate took 11 weeks. These House hearings move fast, but where is it going? Are the Democrats making the strongest case? Was it wise to do this legally or constitutionally the way it was done? Was this the strongest case possible to make? Will this make the argument that the Emolument Clause was the case to make? I’m not sure. Where will this take us in our struggle to right the ship of America from being seized by this kind of right-wing white nationalists who are in power in the executive branch?
Well, we’re now joined by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Marjorie, welcome. Good to have you with us here at the Real News.
MARJORIE COHN: Thanks for having me, Marc.
MARC STEINER: So listen, when you saw the Senate president speak the way he did, I mean there’s not even a pretense here of impartiality. So I mean-
MARJORIE COHN: No, there isn’t. I’ve been a criminal defense attorney for many years and I have never seen a judge and a jury coordinate the trial closely with the defendant, declare that they’re not going to be impartial, and then announce an acquittal before the evidence is ever received. It really makes a mockery of the whole proceeding, and this is the way Mitch McConnell has been playing hardball throughout the Trump administration. We saw how he stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat, and he has the Republicans in the Senate and in the House walking in lockstep with him and the president. Frank Rich said it best in a recent article. He called them Vichy Republicans, Vichy being the French government during the Nazi occupation that was doing Hitler’s bidding. That’s really what they are, Vichy Republicans. I think we can expect an acquittal.
During the pretrial motions yesterday on the first day of trial, to a person, the Republicans voted against the Democratic House manager’s motions to call for witnesses who were direct eye-witnesses to the abuse of power by Trump and to refuse to allow documents to be subpoenaed from the State Department, the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Pentagon. Now, during the impeachment inquiry in the House, Trump, in an unprecedented move, totally stonewalled the inquiry, refused to allow any witnesses to testify from the executive branch, and refused to turn over even one document even though the Constitution is very clear that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. It’s certainly not up to the president who is being impeached, who was impeached in the House, and is being tried in the Senate to decide what the procedure will be. And yet, that’s how Trump has behaved.
His defense team during these pretrial motions kept talking about, “Oh, we have to protect executive privilege for future presidents.” Well, actually, Marc, the president has never invoked executive privilege. Executive privilege is a doctrine that protects certain internal executive branch communications from compelled disclosure, but that’s… So on a case by case basis, the president could say, “That witness should not answer that question. We’re asserting executive privilege,” but Trump went way beyond that and said that witnesses who refuse to testify would have absolute immunity from civil and criminal liability, basically promising them immunity that does not exist. This whole doctrine of absolute immunity has never been upheld by a court, and yet Trump used that and continues to use it in the Senate trial as a way to refuse to allow witnesses to testify or documents to be produced.
Now, nevertheless, 17 executive branch witnesses–and these are not Democrats, these are Trump administration people–testified to the committees in the House of Representatives and made a very powerful case for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but we will see what happens in the Senate. This is a very quick trial. Mitch McConnell wants to get it over quickly, I’m sure coordinating closely with Trump who wants it over. He wants to be able to announce his acquittal at his State of the Union address on February 4th, and McConnell is making sure that the testimony goes into the wee hours of the night to prevent the American people from seeing the incriminating evidence against Trump.
But American people are smart. They can see through this, and 70% of Americans want witnesses to be called. I think that by having it on television… I remember; during the Watergate hearings, people were riveted to the TV. I think that that is going to cause even more people to turn against Trump. Now, there are certain hardline supporters of Trump, his base, and they’re not going to budge no matter what, but I do think that the manager’s presenting this case, the facts to the American people as well as to the Senate, laying bare what Trump did, is going to be very telling and ultimately may be down to Trump’s detriment.
MARC STEINER: So there are a lot of questions here, though. Some people have argued and I’ve read a number of articles arguing that even taking whether than this can even… He’ll be convicted in the Senate. Obviously, we think he will not be convicted the Senate, but taking that as a given, there are many people who argue that politically and constitutionally this was the weakest case they could have drawn. Why didn’t they move on the Emoluments Clause? Why didn’t they move on to other parts of his behavior as president that might have been easier to kind of push? Is there an argument?
MARJORIE COHN: Well there are a number of… Trump has been engaging in impeachable conduct throughout the three years of his presidency.
MARC STEINER: Right.
MARJORIE COHN: Robert Mueller identified ten different grounds for obstruction of justice and in an overly cautious move, didn’t conclude but basically kicked the ball to Congress for impeachment proceedings. Those things could have come in. Don McGahn, who has been ordered now by a court to testify in the Mueller investigation which has been completed, but he’s a very incriminating witness against Trump and he could be called here to talk about how Trump tried to get him to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel, and then cover it up. The Emoluments Clause, financial mis-dealings could also have been raised, but I think that Nancy Pelosi held off on impeachment for a long time until the whistleblower complaint revealed what Trump was doing with basically blackmailing, strong-arming the president of Ukraine to announce spurious investigations of Trump’s political rivals in return for getting military assistance that Congress had already appropriated.
And when that happened, Nancy Pelosi I think saw a very clean case, airtight, easy to explain to the American people involving national security. And I think that’s why they went with it. I’m not sure that that was a mistake. Certainly, they could have expanded the inquiry, but I think that they were gun shy after the Mueller investigation because Mueller was so timid in his conclusions because he did not think that a sitting president could be indicted. That’s what the Department of Justice has always maintained. And since Trump was throwing so much shade at the Mueller investigation, I think the Ukraine scandal is much easier for the American people to get their arms around, and I think that’s why they went with this for the impeachment.
MARC STEINER: It’s interesting that an NBC blogger, before we went on the air, apparently, he spoke yesterday on NBC. Senator John Kennedy, who’s a Republican of Louisiana, said that that he thinks there’s colleagues not having any intention at all. The quote was, “If you poll a Senator, nine out of 10 senators will tell you they have not read the transcript of the House hearings and the 10th is lying to you.” So they are hearing the prosecutor’s case for the first time and they are certainly hearing the president’s case for the first time. I mean to me, that’s a pretty stunning statement for a United States Senator to make about his colleagues in his party on the verge of trying a President of the United States in an impeachment trial in the US Senate.
MARJORIE COHN: I agree, Marc. I think it’s an outrage that these elected officials are ignoring the evidence and the facts. The interesting thing about an impeachment trial is that all 100 senators are forced to sit quietly, not say a word for six days a week while the House managers make their case and the president’s defense team makes its case, and then the senators will be allowed to do some questioning, but they can’t have any cell phones. They can daydream, but they have to sit there and listen to the evidence. Probably many of them are hearing it for the first time, but better that they hear it.
Doesn’t mean that they’re going to change their minds. They walk in lockstep with the president. They’re good foot soldiers, but at least… And you wonder how, to a person, there is a total absence of conscience on the part of the Republican Congress members. It’s just astounding, and I have to think that a number of them are watching their own backsides because if they break with the president, they know that he’ll come out and lambast them and scream and yell and tweet and that might harm their chances for reelection. But the lack of integrity among the Republican Congress members is stunning.
MARC STEINER: So I’m curious. In your time as president of National Lawyers Guild, that’s an organization that deals with the state of our country constitutionally, but also is a very political organization. So when you think about the work that the Lawyers Guild and others like the Lawyers Guild have done in the past and you look at this impeachment trial as a constitutional crisis, but also look at it in terms of what it means politically in a struggle in this country in terms of how you define the country, who we are, what we’re going to become, where we’re going, how do you blend those two things in this particular case? Is this worth it in the political sense?
MARJORIE COHN: Well I really think that the House of Representatives had no choice once the Ukraine scandal broke. I just don’t think they had any choice. They had to go with impeachment and for the sake of the Constitution, for the sake of history really. Now, does this take away from attention to problems like healthcare and education and racism, et cetera? Yes, it does and that’s unfortunate, but I think that Trump, who does so much damage to so many people in so many countries on so many levels, needs to be called out. There’s no other way to hold him accountable other than to mount an impeachment proceeding. Certainly, he could be defeated at the ballot box and that’s one of the things that his defense lawyers are arguing, that the impeachment process is trying to undo the results of an election and prevent him from and they should just wait and voters should vote him out if they don’t like what he’s doing.
But if that was the case, why would the founders put impeachment in the Constitution? The word impeachment appears six times in the Constitution, and the founders saw that there was a real danger of overreach by the executive of abuse of power where he would abuse his power for his own personal gain. That’s why they put impeachment into the Constitution as a way to check and balance the executive. So I think that ultimately there was no choice. We had to have this impeachment. Is it an ideal use of our time, knowing that he is going to be ultimately acquitted by the Senate, to watch these proceedings? Could our time be better spent? Possibly, but I think that what this does is to lay bare for all to see what Trump has really done here.
MARC STEINER: Marjorie Cohn, it’s a pleasure to talk with you. I look forward to many more conversations around this. I appreciate your writing and the work you’ve done. Thank you very much for taking your time today with us here at the Real News.
MARJORIE COHN: Thanks so much, Marc. I appreciate it.
MARC STEINER: My pleasure. I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Let us know what you think. Take care.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Taylor Hebden
Production: Taylor Hebden, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-23--Brazil’s Right-Wing Bolsonaro Regime Attacks Leading Critic Glenn Greenwald

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : Welcome to the Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore .
Brazilian prosecutors have filed criminal charges against the investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald .
They accuse him of being part of a criminal organization that hacked into the cell phones of public officials last year .
Greenwald and the website , The Intercept , which he works for published a series of stunning articles based on phone chats that revealed prosecutorial bias and collusion between prosecutors and judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ex-president , Lula da Silva behind bars .
After the articles were published , Brazil ’ s right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro specifically singled out Greenwald saying that he might wind up in jail for publishing his revelations .
Greenwald had already warned about being investigated and receiving death threats after The Intercept ’ s articles had been published .
Supreme Court justice though issued an order prohibiting the further investigation of Greenwald .
Here ’ s a video statement Glenn Greenwald made shortly after the charges were filed against him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Bolsonaro government , President Bolsonaro , multiple members of his government simply don ’ t believe in a free press .
They don ’ t believe in press freedom .
They don ’ t even believe in democracy .
They ’ ve repeatedly and explicitly praised the military dictatorship that ruled the country until 1985 as a superior form of government , and this is all about ushering in that level of repression .
Secondly , the prosecutor who brought the charges just a couple of months ago unsuccessfully tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Brazilian Bar Association who criticized Minister Sergio Moro .
He tried to claim that that criticism constituted a crime in Brazil and it was rejected by the court .
He ’ s obviously somebody abusing his prosecutorial power to punish the political enemies of the Bolsonaro government .
Third , the police , the federal police , conducted a comprehensive investigation of our reporting , of our sources , and concluded any report published just a couple of months ago that everything shows that I never committed any crime .
Much to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they called the highest level of professionalism , caution , and responsibility in ensuring that I was doing my work as a journalist and never got anywhere near a crime .
Greg Wilpert : The website , The Intercept , also released a statement about the charges saying , “ We are appalled that Brazil ’ s public ministry has decided to file such a blatantly politically motivated charge against Greenwald in apparent retaliation for The Intercept ’ s critical reporting on abuses committed by Justice Minister Moro and several federal prosecutors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempt to criminalize not only our journalism but also that of the dozens of partners who collaborated with our staff on over 95 stories based on the archives.
” Joining me now to discuss these latest developments in Brazil and the charges against Glenn Greenwald is Brian Mier .
He ’ s an editor for the website , Brasil Wire , and is also editor of the book Voices of the Brazilian Left .
Thanks for joining us again , Brian .
Brian Mier : Thanks for having me , Greg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ start with some background information .
Briefly give us an idea as to what Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept have been revealing over the past year that ’ s making the Bolsonaro government so angry about the reporting .
Brian Mier : Well basically , Greenwald got ahold of thousands of hours of social media chats and conversations between Judge Sergio Moro , who was a judge at the time currently serving as Bolsonaro ’ s super justice minister , with the [ Lava Jato 00:03:32 ] task force , the prosecuting team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation by US or European legal standards , Moro was allowed to oversee the investigation and rule on what kind of evidence was admitted and also rule on the case with no jury .
So what these conversations reveal is that every single step of the way , Moro was giving instructions to the prosecutors on how to prepare a case on something that he was supposedly impartially judging on .
Now , they show that Moro also got involved in Dilma Rousseff ’ s impeachment .
He acted illegally as the leaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Dilma Rousseff and former president Lula the day before she was trying to appoint Lula to be her chief of staff to destroy his image and block that from happening .
There are conversations between the prosecutors talking about how they were praying to God that Bolsonaro would win the election , and they show that Moro was helping them develop a media strategy to support Bolsonaro in the elections .
And then immediately after the elections , Bolsonaro appointed Moro with a cabinet position .
It shows that Lula was deliberately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path for the neo-fascist Jair Bolsonaro to take power , and it also shows him illegally leaking things to damage the reputation of Fernando Haddad who was Lula ’ s replacement candidate in the 2018 elections during the election season .
So it ’ s very damning and they ’ ve still got a lot of information they haven ’ t even released yet .
They ’ ve been kind of releasing it homeopathically piece by peace in partnership with traditional right-wing Brazilian mainstream media publications like Veja Magazine , [ inaudible 00:05:36 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a strategy that ’ s really interesting because everyone on the left in Brazil already thought Moro was acting illegally and that this was a kangaroo court procedure and everything .
So the strategy that he ’ s used to release these really shocking conversations is in partnership with media companies that initially supported Lula ’ s imprisonment .
So it ’ s chipping away at the kind of center right in Brazil , chipping away systematically at Moro ’ s popularity rate , at Bolsonaro ’ s popularity rate .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is what is making them go after him .
Greg Wilpert : Now , prosecutors also want to … Basically , they ’ re charging Greenwald with cyber crimes , with hacking into the smartphones of prosecutors and judges who have been involved in this [ inaudible 00:06:30 ] and other corruption cases .
Now , how serious would you say are these charges and what ’ s the reaction been to them from the media and from politicians in Brazil ?
Brian Mier : Well , Greg , the charges are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Okay ?
They didn ’ t investigate Greenwald .
The guy who ’ s making , the public prosecutor who ’ s making these charges has no investigation to back them up .
Right ?
So not just by my analysis but by the leading legal scholars in Brazil , not only are they frivolous , but they represent an abuse of authority on the part of this public prosecutor who is a close ally of Justice Minister Sergio Moro .
The reaction to it , it ’ s interesting because obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of on the Brazilian left , which is like almost half of the population here , pretty much automatically believing that these are frivolous charges , but some key figures on the Brazilian right have come out in defense of Glenn Greenwald including Congressional President Rodrigo Maia who tweeted out yesterday that this is an attack against freedom of the press in Brazil .
So it ’ s interesting to see the reaction .
Also , many foreign correspondents who supported Lula ’ s imprisonment , who never questioned the lawfare attack against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re immediately questioning these accusations against Greenwald which are being made basically by the same a right-wing , far right-wing coalition within the public prosecutor ’ s office .
So a lot of journalists who kind of scoffed at the Intercept revelations last year or worked to minimize their importance in the mainstream media , they ’ re now standing behind Greenwald as well .
So it ’ s really this kind of like national and international outpouring of support for him against this fascist attack .
Really there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s fascism .
It ’ s attacking .
It ’ s legal harassment .
It ’ s A lawfare attack against a journalist for doing his job .
Greg Wilpert : Now , apparently Greenwald has also been publishing stories about I mean specifically this , I mean Bolsonaro ’ s connection to fascism and to Nazism , that his culture minister , for example , Roberto Alvim was recently fired for having quoted Hitler ’ s Minister of Propaganda , Joseph Goebbels .
Then there were other issues involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what ’ s been going on in this regard and how this might be connected to the charges against Greenwald .
Brian Mier : Well one of the tenants of fascism is that there ’ s no freedom of the press .
I mean Hitler and Mussolini did not have a very good record in relation to journalism and journalists .
We all know this , right ?
So since Bolsonaro started his political career , he ’ s made a lot of comments showing his affinity with fascism and everyone knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture minister gave a speech that it turned out was completely plagiarized from Hitler ’ s propaganda minister , Goebbels , about the next 10 years of cultural production in Brazil .
Right ?
So this immediately caused him to be fired even though , before he came on the air and gave the speech , Bolsonaro tweeted out lavish praise on his strategy for culture .
So the last thing Greenwald wrote before he was accused with these frivolous charges was an article about how just firing this guy isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolsonaro government which is favorable to fascism .
It ’ s using fascist tactics and it has deep links to Nazism .
I can give you a few examples here .
First of all , Ernesto Araujo , Bolsonaro ’ s Minister of Foreign Affairs , in 1978 , his father refused three extradition requests for a former concentration camp director from Poland .
All right .
Shortly after that , Bolsonaro ’ s education minister , Weintraub , gave a speech directly plagiarized from Mein Kampf in which he just substituted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said things like the communists are at the top of the world financial system .
On top of that after the culture minister was fired last week , an old video of Bolsonaro resurfaced on Twitter and in the social media in which he talks about how , if he were alive during Nazi Germany , he would have had no problem whatsoever enlisting in Hitler ’ s army .
He goes on to praise Hitler as a brilliant strategist and talks about how his great-grandfather fought with the Nazis in Germany and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just … As Greenwald said , it ’ s not just that , “ Oh , how did this happen ?
How did this Nazi accidentally get into the cultural ministry ?
” There ’ s an entire pattern of top officials in Bolsonaro ’ s government , including Bolsonaro himself , making sympathetic comments about the Nazis or plagiarizing Nazi speeches .
Greg Wilpert : Now , one aspect of the story though that has not been much reported outside of Brazil , I mean in addition of course to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s another aspect that ’ s been under-reported it seems to me which is the situation of the actual hackers that are accused of intercepting the chat messages that this is all about .
Allegedly , they ’ ve been caught , but what do we know about them and what can you tell us about that aspect of the story ?
Brian Mier : Well , Greg , it ’ s very nebulous .
At first , they announced that they ’ d caught these seven hackers .
They were from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sao Paulo , that they had been the ones who leaked the information to Greenwald .
Then it came out that the leader of this group of hackers was actually someone who had publicly supported Bolsonaro in the 2018 elections .
So that raised a lot of suspicion about everything .
So they keep saying they found the hackers , they ’ re talking to the hackers , but nobody really knows what the situation is , who they are , or how the information was hacked .
People don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the social media app , was hacked , which the directors of Telegram say it ’ s impossible .
People don ’ t know if a phone was stolen by one of the people in this Telegram group connected to the Lava Jato task force or if a phone was cloned .
We don ’ t really have the information yet .
It ’ s very nebulous .
They haven ’ t pulled out anyone and said , “ This is the person behind all of this really.
” They just keep saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we don ’ t really have the information yet .
My personal feeling is that they haven ’ t … I don ’ t know if they ’ ve really got the right people .
It might just be that they found some scapegoats .
Greg Wilpert : Okay .
Well we ’ re going to continue to follow the story of course , but we ’ ll leave it there for now .
I am speaking to Brian Mier , editor for the website Brasil wire .
Thanks again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

Brazil’s government faces near unanimous condemnation over its attempt to punish journalist Glenn Greenwald for revealing its corrupt investigation practices.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.
Brazilian prosecutors have filed criminal charges against the investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald. They accuse him of being part of a criminal organization that hacked into the cell phones of public officials last year. Greenwald and the website, The Intercept, which he works for published a series of stunning articles based on phone chats that revealed prosecutorial bias and collusion between prosecutors and judges who were in charge of putting Brazil’s ex-president Lula da Silva behind bars.
After the articles were published, Brazil’s right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro specifically singled out Greenwald saying that he might wind up in jail for publishing his revelations. Greenwald had already warned about being investigated and receiving death threats after The Intercept’s articles had been published. Supreme Court justice though issued an order prohibiting the further investigation of Greenwald. Here’s a video statement Glenn Greenwald made shortly after the charges were filed against him.
GLEN GREENWALD: As you probably know, the Bolsonaro government, President Bolsonaro, multiple members of his government simply don’t believe in a free press. They don’t believe in press freedom. They don’t even believe in democracy. They’ve repeatedly and explicitly praised the military dictatorship that ruled the country until 1985 as a superior form of government, and this is all about ushering in that level of repression.
Secondly, the prosecutor who brought the charges just a couple of months ago unsuccessfully tried to bring similar charges against the head of the Brazilian Bar Association who criticized Minister Sergio Moro. He tried to claim that that criticism constituted a crime in Brazil and it was rejected by the court. He’s obviously somebody abusing his prosecutorial power to punish the political enemies of the Bolsonaro government.
Third, the police, the federal police, conducted a comprehensive investigation of our reporting, of our sources, and concluded any report published just a couple of months ago that everything shows that I never committed any crime. Much to the contrary, I always exercise what they called the highest level of professionalism, caution, and responsibility in ensuring that I was doing my work as a journalist and never got anywhere near a crime.
GREG WILPERT: The website, The Intercept, also released a statement about the charges saying, “We are appalled that Brazil’s public ministry has decided to file such a blatantly politically motivated charge against Greenwald in apparent retaliation for The Intercept’s critical reporting on abuses committed by Justice Minister Moro and several federal prosecutors. We at The Intercept see this as an attempt to criminalize not only our journalism but also that of the dozens of partners who collaborated with our staff on over 95 stories based on the archives.”
Joining me now to discuss these latest developments in Brazil and the charges against Glenn Greenwald is Brian Mier. He’s an editor for the website Brasil Wire and is also editor of the book Voices of the Brazilian Left. Thanks for joining us again, Brian.
BRIAN MIER: Thanks for having me, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: So let’s start with some background information. Briefly give us an idea as to what Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept have been revealing over the past year that’s making the Bolsonaro government so angry about the reporting.
BRIAN MIER: Well basically, Greenwald got ahold of thousands of hours of social media chats and conversations between Judge Sergio Moro, who was a judge at the time currently serving as Bolsonaro’s super justice minister, with the [Lava Jato 00:03:32] task force, the prosecuting team. Now, in a very unusual situation by US or European legal standards, Moro was allowed to oversee the investigation and rule on what kind of evidence was admitted and also rule on the case with no jury. So what these conversations reveal is that every single step of the way, Moro was giving instructions to the prosecutors on how to prepare a case on something that he was supposedly impartially judging on.
Now, they show that Moro also got involved in Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment. He acted illegally as the leaks show in releasing illegally tapped phone conversations between Dilma Rousseff and former president Lula the day before she was trying to appoint Lula to be her chief of staff to destroy his image and block that from happening. There are conversations between the prosecutors talking about how they were praying to God that Bolsonaro would win the election, and they show that Moro was helping them develop a media strategy to support Bolsonaro in the elections. And then immediately after the elections, Bolsonaro appointed Moro with a cabinet position. It shows that Lula was deliberately removed from the race to open the path for the neo-fascist Jair Bolsonaro to take power, and it also shows him illegally leaking things to damage the reputation of Fernando Haddad who was Lula’s replacement candidate in the 2018 elections during the election season.
So it’s very damning and they’ve still got a lot of information they haven’t even released yet. They’ve been kind of releasing it homeopathically piece by piece in partnership with traditional right-wing Brazilian mainstream media publications like Veja Magazine in Sao Paulo. I think it’s a strategy that’s really interesting because everyone on the left in Brazil already thought Moro was acting illegally and that this was a kangaroo court procedure and everything. So the strategy that he’s used to release these really shocking conversations is in partnership with media companies that initially supported Lula’s imprisonment. So it’s chipping away at the kind of center right in Brazil, chipping away systematically at Moro’s popularity rate, at Bolsonaro’s popularity rate. This is what makes them so mad and this is what is making them go after him.
GREG WILPERT: Now, prosecutors also want to… Basically, they’re charging Greenwald with cyber crimes, with hacking into the smartphones of prosecutors and judges who have been involved in this and other corruption cases. Now, how serious would you say are these charges and what’s the reaction been to them from the media and from politicians in Brazil?
BRIAN MIER: Well Greg, the charges are completely frivolous. There was no investigation. Okay? They didn’t investigate Greenwald. The guy who’s making, the public prosecutor who’s making these charges has no investigation to back them up. Right? So not just by my analysis but by the leading legal scholars in Brazil, not only are they frivolous, but they represent an abuse of authority on the part of this public prosecutor who is a close ally of Justice Minister Sergio Moro. The reaction to it, it’s interesting because obviously everyone who’s progressive or kind of on the Brazilian left, which is like almost half of the population here, pretty much automatically believing that these are frivolous charges, but some key figures on the Brazilian right have come out in defense of Glenn Greenwald including Congressional President Rodrigo Maia who tweeted out yesterday that this is an attack against freedom of the press in Brazil. So it’s interesting to see the reaction.
Also, many foreign correspondents who supported Lula’s imprisonment–who never questioned the law fare attack against Lula, the kangaroo court procedure–they’re immediately questioning these accusations against Greenwald which are being made basically by the same a right-wing, far right-wing coalition within the public prosecutor’s office. So a lot of journalists who kind of scoffed at the Intercept revelations last year or worked to minimize their importance in the mainstream media, they’re now standing behind Greenwald as well. So it’s really this kind of like national and international outpouring of support for him against this fascist attack. Really there’s only one thing you can call it. It’s fascism. It’s attacking. It’s legal harassment. It’s a lawfare attack against a journalist for doing his job.
GREG WILPERT: Now, apparently Greenwald has also been publishing stories about I mean specifically this, I mean Bolsonaro’s connection to fascism and to Nazism, that his culture minister, for example, Roberto Alvim was recently fired for having quoted Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Then there were other issues involving the Bolsonaro government and Nazism. Talk about what’s been going on in this regard and how this might be connected to the charges against Greenwald.
BRIAN MIER: Well one of the tenants of fascism is that there’s no freedom of the press. I mean Hitler and Mussolini did not have a very good record in relation to journalism and journalists. We all know this, right? So since Bolsonaro started his political career, he’s made a lot of comments showing his affinity with fascism and everyone knows this. So last week, his culture minister gave a speech that it turned out was completely plagiarized from Hitler’s propaganda minister, Goebbels, about the next 10 years of cultural production in Brazil. Right? So this immediately caused him to be fired even though, before he came on the air and gave the speech, Bolsonaro tweeted out lavish praise on his strategy for culture.
So the last thing Greenwald wrote before he was accused with these frivolous charges was an article about how just firing this guy isn’t going to change the ethos within the Bolsonaro government which is favorable to fascism. It’s using fascist tactics and it has deep links to Nazism. I can give you a few examples here. First of all, Ernesto Araujo, Bolsonaro’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, in 1978, his father refused three extradition requests for a former concentration camp director from Poland. Shortly after that, Bolsonaro’s education minister, Weintraub, gave a speech directly plagiarized from Mein Kampf in which he just substituted the word Jews for communists. So he said things like the communists are at the top of the world financial system.
On top of that, after the culture minister was fired last week, an old video of Bolsonaro resurfaced on Twitter and in the social media in which he talks about how, if he were alive during Nazi Germany, he would have had no problem whatsoever enlisting in Hitler’s army. He goes on to praise Hitler as a brilliant strategist and talks about how his great-grandfather fought with the Nazis in Germany and lost an arm. So as Greenwald said, it’s not just that, “Oh, how did this happen? How did this Nazi accidentally get into the cultural ministry?” There’s an entire pattern of top officials in Bolsonaro’s government, including Bolsonaro himself, making sympathetic comments about the Nazis or plagiarizing Nazi speeches.
GREG WILPERT: Now, one aspect of the story though that has not been much reported outside of Brazil, I mean in addition of course to this connection to Nazism, but there’s another aspect that’s been under-reported it seems to me which is the situation of the actual hackers that are accused of intercepting the chat messages that this is all about. Allegedly, they’ve been caught, but what do we know about them and what can you tell us about that aspect of the story?
BRIAN MIER: Well, Greg, it’s very nebulous. At first, they announced that they’d caught these seven hackers. They were from a small town in the countryside of Sao Paulo, that they had been the ones who leaked the information to Greenwald. Then it came out that the leader of this group of hackers was actually someone who had publicly supported Bolsonaro in the 2018 elections. So that raised a lot of suspicion about everything. So they keep saying they found the hackers, they’re talking to the hackers, but nobody really knows what the situation is, who they are, or how the information was hacked.
People don’t know if this was… If Telegram, the social media app, was hacked, which the directors of Telegram say it’s impossible. People don’t know if a phone was stolen by one of the people in this Telegram group connected to the Lava Jato task force or if a phone was cloned. We don’t really have the information yet. It’s very nebulous. They haven’t pulled out anyone and said, “This is the person behind all of this really.” They just keep saying that they’re talking to them, but we don’t really have the information yet. My personal feeling is that they haven’t … I don’t know if they’ve really got the right people. It might just be that they found some scapegoats.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well we’re going to continue to follow the story of course, but we’ll leave it there for now. I am speaking to Brian Mier, editor for the website Brasil wire. Thanks again, Brian, for having joined us today.
BRIAN MIER: Thanks a lot, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley
Production: Adam Coley
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-22--Did a Maryland Sheriff Deliberately Hit a Motorcyclist?

Eastern Shore residents are concerned that the Worcester County Sheriff ’ s Office and Maryland State Police ( MSP ) are covering up a collision that sent a motorcyclist to shock trauma .
The motorcyclist , Mouloudou Kane , was severely injured in the crash with Worcester County Sheriff ’ s Deputy Gregory Wetzel .
The case is finally drawing scrutiny after TRNN obtained the official MSP accident investigation report which labeled the accident “ preventable.
” Two residents of Worcester County , MD described what they witnessed as a horrifying scene : A police vehicle crossed two traffic lanes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highway into a motorcyclist who was picking up his bike after a slide .
The witnesses were loading their truck in preparation for a barbeque over Memorial Day weekend when they saw what they believed to be an intentional collision with the downed cyclist .
“ We came home from grocery shopping , and we were getting out of the car and heard a horrific bang , ” said one witness , who wishes to remain unidentified out of fear of retaliation .
“ They [ police ] already had weapons withdrawn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car in the back .
And from about a half a mile away the other cop ’ s vehicle ran through them both and aimed for him and hit him so hard his body flew toward the tree line , ” said the witness .
Kane was flown to Shock Trauma , and his attorney , Richard Brueckner Jr. , confirmed that if the injury had been one inch closer to his femoral artery he would have bled out and died .
His lawyer said Kane laid his motorcycle down on the shoulder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bumper of a car that had switched lanes abruptly , and that he had no idea that he was being followed by police .
The eyewitness accounts expose what some residents say is a lack of transparency and accountability in law enforcement on the Eastern Shore .
“ I want to see the responsibility taken by the party that I believe committed a crime .
I know what ’ s right and wrong , but I know what I saw and what my son saw wasn ’ t right .
I want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Afterward , it seemed as if things were being arranged… ” said the witness .
Real News reporters scoured the Worcester County Sheriff ’ s Office and MSP websites for press releases or information about the accident , as well as the MSP log for medevac flights , but found no record of the accident or the shock trauma flight taking place .
Only video taken by the eyewitnesses and photos found on the Worcester County Fire Marshal ’ s Office website confirmed that the accident and airlift had occurred .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation that determined the accident was avoidable , Mr. Kane was still charged with 25 different counts ranging from speeding to reckless driving , all of which were dismissed in court .
TRNN contacted the Worcester County Sheriff ’ s Office but has yet to receive comment on whether or not Deputy Gregory Wetzel is under investigation for his role in the crash .
TRNN has filed an MPIA request for dashcam footage and all pertinent case evidence and will update this story with any information regarding an investigation of the crash or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kane with his police vehicle .

Clarification: In the original version of the story TRNN reported that the Maryland State Police investigated the accident. Only the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office issued a report on the accident.
A collision with a Worcester County Sheriff that severely injured a motorcyclist but has received little attention is coming under renewed scrutiny after TRNN obtained the official accident investigation report which labeled the crash “preventable.”
Mouloudou Kane, who was standing on the side of the road with his motorcycle, was severely injured in a crash with Worcester County Sheriff’s Deputy Gregory Wetzel.
Two residents of Worcester County, MD described what they witnessed as a horrifying scene: A police vehicle crossing two traffic lanes and drove onto the shoulder of the highway into a motorcyclist who was picking up his bike after a slide.
The witnesses were loading their truck in preparation for a barbeque over Memorial Day weekend when they saw what they believed to be an intentional collision with the downed cyclist.
“We came home from grocery shopping, and we were getting out of the car and heard a horrific bang,” said one witness, who wishes to remain unidentified out of fear of retaliation.
“They [police] already had weapons withdrawn, with a car in front and a car in the back. And from about a half a mile away the other cop’s vehicle ran through them both and aimed for him and hit him so hard his body flew toward the tree line,” said the witness.
Kane was flown to Shock Trauma, and his attorney, Richard Brueckner Jr., confirmed that if the injury had been one inch closer to his femoral artery he would have bled out and died. His lawyer said Kane laid his motorcycle down on the shoulder of the highway to avoid hitting the bumper of a car that had switched lanes abruptly, and that he had no idea that he was being followed by police.
The eyewitness accounts raise questions about what some residents say is a lack of transparency and accountability in law enforcement on the Eastern Shore. “I want to see the responsibility taken by the party that I believe committed a crime. I know what’s right and wrong, but I know what I saw and what my son saw wasn’t right. I want to see some justice brought to that man … Afterward, it seemed as if things were being arranged…” said the witness.
The Worcester County Sheriff’s Office has yet to post any information about the accident.
Despite evidence from two eyewitnesses and the conclusion of investigators the collision was “preventable,” Mr. Kane was still charged with 25 traffic violations ranging from speeding to reckless driving, all of which were dismissed in court. TRNN contacted the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office but has yet to receive comment on whether or not Deputy Gregory Wetzel is under investigation for his role in the crash.
TRNN has filed an MPIA request for dashcam footage and all pertinent case evidence and will update this story when new information becomes available.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-22--Climate Change Will Alter Sports Forever

Dave Zirin is the sports editor of the Nation Magazine. He is the author of 11 books on the politics of sports, including most recently, The Kaepernick Effect Taking A Knee, Saving the World. He’s appeared on ESPN, NBC News, CNN, Democracy Now, and numerous other outlets. Follow him at @EdgeofSports.


therealnews--2020-01-23--Exclusive: Body Cam Shows Cop Planting Gun on Innocent Man

Body Cam footage obtained by the Police Accountability Report shows how a Baltimore Police was caught lying about what he @ @ @ @ @ court that a man possessed a gun

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.