therealnews--2020-02-26--Did a Privately Funded Spy Plane Catch Cops Lying?

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Kim Brown : Welcome to the Real News .
I ’ m Kim Brown .
The Baltimore City Police Department is corrupt , period , and residents here have valid and well-documented reasons to disbelieve when those in top leadership proclaimed dedication to transparency and accountability within their own ranks .
Since the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in police custody , BPD has been put under a federal consent decree with around a dozen officers indicted and found guilty of a myriad of felonies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed on a do not call to testify in court lists by the city state ’ s attorney ’ s office because of their willingness to lie .
Now , despite all of this , Baltimore police continue to receive the lion ’ s share of the city ’ s budget and has even been offered outside help to allegedly fight crime .
In 2017 , it was revealed that the police unbenounced to elected officials and the public at large allowed a privately funded spy plane to surveil the city during 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent criminals and turns out the plane did capture a police shooting involving at least two cops who were convicted criminally on other incidents .
But the attorney of the man shot says the spy plane footage could prove that the cops lied about this incident as well .
This is all according to a new piece in theappeal.org by Brandon Soderberg .
He is a Baltimore-based journalist and co-author of the forthcoming book about police corruption in Baltimore titled , I got a Monster and he joins us today in studio .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being here .
Brandon Soderberg : Thanks for having me .
Kim Brown : So let ’ s go back if we could to 2016 where there is a surveillance plane flying the skies of Baltimore city and everyone does not know this , but it happens to catch an incident involving a man named Jawan Richards , can you tell us what happened ?
Brandon Soderberg : Sure , yeah .
Really briefly , there was a spy plane .
It ’ s a privately funded kind of developed by military technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a company called Persistent Surveillance Solutions .
The plane was flying secretly because it was allegedly supposed to be capturing mostly violent crimes .
It was flying from January to June and then a little into the summer anyway , and it works by , it ’ s a bunch of cameras that are always recording the city , 30 square miles at a time .
In one of its flights on January 27th , 2016 it happens to catch on the kind of corner of its coverage , a police shooting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop a man named Jawan Richards in two different cars .
They stop him and they end up shooting him .
They shoot him through the windshield of the car and he gets shot in the neck once .
They later charge him with possession of a handgun and I think cannabis possession .
And then the story went , as police shooting , Mr. Richards tried to drive away .
He tried to hit one of the cops with his car .
He tried to crash into the cop cars .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of the official story and that was really the story that happened with Richards up until a little earlier this year when Ivan Bates , Richards ’ attorney finally was able to review plane footage of the incident .
He didn ’ t even fully understand what the plane was at the time .
No one really told him .
And so he didn ’ t get this footage and his client ultimately pled guilty as a lot of people do .
And so by September of 2016 , eight months after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty , already about to be sentenced .
And it ’ s around that same time that the police and the state ’ s attorney ’ s office find out via the spy plane folks that , Hey , this was captured .
And according to Ivan Bates ’ motion , which involved talking to this plane technologist Ross McNutt .
Ross McNutt says that , we ’ re not interested in seeing the footage- Kim Brown : When you say they , you mean Baltimore police , right ?
Kim Brown : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spy plane .
That they were not interested in seeing this footage that depicted their officers involved in a civilian incident where someone ended up shot .
The cops were not interested in this .
Brandon Soderberg : Yeah , right .
Yeah .
So one of the things that plane ’ s busy doing is capturing events , rewinding the footage and sort of giving police investigative tools by saying , Hey , the shooter of this alleged thing , they were in this car and they went this way or they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footage and watch it and ideally sort of get more investigative tools for a crime .
So , and Ross McNutt , the plane guy , he would sort of investigate shootings the police asked them to because he was really trying to push his plane .
When he would just see stuff on the news , he would go dig up the footage .
That ’ s what he did with this .
He immediately reached out to police , be like , Hey , that police shooting from a little while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they said at the time , and I stress really that this is all in a motion , which defense theory Ivan Bates was able to have Ross sign an affidavit that says essentially the equivalent of sworn testimony , which Ross McNutt says , when I told the police about this , they said , we ’ re not really interested , if that gets out there are kind of exposed at the planes flying secretly .
We didn ’ t really want to have that happen .
By which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this plane secretly to capture crime .
It captures a crime .
They ’ re like , well , if we reveal it then it will reveal the plane .
It ’ s kind of crazy .
And then , yeah , sorry .
Kim Brown : I want to ask you about- Kim Brown : It is a little complicated .
But I want everyone who is concerned about the person who got shot .
How is Jawan Richards doing ?
I mean , what was the extent of his injuries ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a crime , a couple of crimes actually in connection to this incident .
So what happened with him ?
Is he , okay , first of all , and second of all , is he in jail or is he- Brandon Soderberg : He ’ s now out .
He ’ s already served his sentence for this because it ’ s almost , it ’ s more than four years later .
Richards ultimately was okay .
I mean , he was shot in the neck .
He survived .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wasn ’ t clear .
I don ’ t know his health in general , but I mean he ’ s out of jail now .
And this motion is sort of one of an attempt to vacate his sentence because of the supposedly lies that the plane shows .
Kim Brown : So there ’ s so much corruption and so many different stories of corruption percolating throughout Baltimore Police Department .
And the fact that two of the officers on the scene were charged criminally , not with this incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you talk to us about who these cops are and what they were charged with ?
Brandon Soderberg : Sure .
So the two cops that shot Jawan Richards in January 2016 were Carmine Vignola and Robert Hankard .
They were sort of tangentially related to what ’ s called the Gun Trace Task Force , which is a group of seven cops in an ongoing federal investigation of police corruption .
These seven cops who were all indicted in March of 2017 were stealing from people , robbing drug dealers .
Brandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug dealers , re-dealing drugs , planting guns on people .
A lot of different things .
In this sort of ongoing investigation , it sort of spiraled out .
In total I think a dozen cops now had been somehow criminally charged .
But in 2019 , Vignola , who was one of the shooters , was charged and earlier this year , Robert Hankard was finally charged .
And what they were charged with was a 2014 case in which the Gun Trace Task Force leader , Wayne Jenkins , ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran them over , I don ’ t know .
He ran this man over and then he called a few cops , including Hankard and Vignola and was like , Hey , anybody got a gun or a BB gun I could plant on somebody to kind of justify saying , Hey , I thought he had a gun .
He was going to aim it at me .
I had to run him over .
And so they were both , Vignola and Hankard , who shot Richards were indicted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it ’ s sort of been attorney .
Ivan Bates ’ head sort of rings like , Oh , those are those officers from my other case in 2016 Richards .
He starts to dig into it more .
It ’ s about the same time all this was happening because of reporting I had been doing on these corrupt cops that I learned that the police shooting of Richards was captured by a plane .
I was able to get some documents that showed that .
I was able to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who confirmed it .
I eventually got this sort of big evidence packet from a few different sources .
I was able to confirm this happen and so when the plane was announced at the beginning end of 2019 that was going to fly this May , I published a quick story about it and just was like , Hey , by the way , everybody , it captured a police shooting and not only that , but the plane guy , Ross ’ s argument was , he said to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed .
And from that , just to see how kind of cloaked in secrecy this all was , it was only because of that story .
And I ’ m not trying to pat myself on the back , just the sequence of events that happened , was because of that story , Richards ’ attorney Ivan Bates , called me and was like , “ Wait , there ’ s video of this thing ?
” , and I was like , yeah , there ’ s video of it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk to plane guy and much to the credit of Ross McNutt , the plane surveillance guy , he was like , sure , I ’ ll show you the footage and I ’ ll sign an affidavit .
I tried to do all these things and so Ivan eventually sees the footage and really starts to see the contradictions of it .
Kim Brown : Well and see and that ’ s the stunning thing and I do want us to circle back because we need to make it clear , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Baltimore city for the purposes of catching crimes .
The plane caught a crime committed allegedly by police and the police are not interested in it and the plane is going to fly again actually and we ’ re going to hear from Baltimore Police Commissioner , Michael Harrison .
He ’ s announcing , as Brandon just said , that the spy plane is going to return to Baltimore skies in May of 2020 .
Let ’ s take a listen .
Michael Harriso… : The pilot program will be limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will not be used for real time active surveillance , meaning there is no real live streaming and live feeds .
Second , the video feeds will not be directly accessible by Baltimore Police Department officers .
Instead , the company supplying the planes will provide us with evidence packages that are specific to incidents that have already been reported .
Third , the information collected during the pilot program will only be used by the department to investigate the most serious offenses , specifically murders , shootings , armed robberies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an independent third party civilian auditing team that will review BPDs use of the program to ensure that we are following the program ’ s exact guidelines on privacy , inappropriate use of the system .
There will also be independent group of research partners to assess what the impact of the pilot program was on clearance rates , solvability of crimes and any crime suppression that can be observed .
Kim Brown : So Brandon , we just heard from the Baltimore Police Commissioner there , Michael Harrison in which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be used again in another trial run .
This one , we ’ re going to tell everybody about – Brandon Soderberg : It ’ s at least not secret this time .
Kim Brown : The first one was completely secret , but a couple of things that he said .
He said that the city is going to rely on independent third party oversight and also going to rely on independent researchers to ascertain whether or not the plane is actually effective in clearance rates for a particular crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your reporting , do you think that the city is disclosing enough about the kind of information that is being collected , who has access to it , where it will be stored ?
You know , because really this is in the hands of a private entity and not really subject to public oversight .
Brandon Soderberg : Right .
So I mean they ’ re certainly saying it ’ s going to … we ’ ll know it ’ s in the air , but a lot of the details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re kind of cloaking in this like , well this is just a test .
We ’ re just , this is the pilot program so we don ’ t have to have it all worked out .
That ’ s why we ’ re flying this plane secretly over the city … unsecretly over the city this time so we can figure out all the details .
But the immediate questions to ask is like , so now the police won ’ t have any access to it .
So it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Persistent Surveillance and their technician .
So just dudes that the technology guy hires will be looking at this footage of access to these guys .
Kim Brown : Who are these guys ?
Do they have security clearances , like they ’ re not state employees , they ’ re not employees of the police department .
Brandon Soderberg : They ’ re hired by the … and then there ’ s … to really give credit to the reporter who broke this all open , which was initially in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was the first article exposed it .
That article goes through some of the hiring practices and a McNutt ’ s company mostly focused on people who are good at video games because it ’ s a lot like a video game to watch and manipulate the footage .
So it ’ s a bunch of video game dudes watching Baltimore all day , every day .
So yeah , so there ’ s that , there ’ s that .
And then the idea is that these private technicians will prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observed .
So if there ’ s a shooting on X street at Y time , they ’ ll pull that footage up and they ’ ll say , here ’ s what we ’ ve observed .
And by rewinding it or fast forwarding and in theory they can , you know , get some additional information .
Hey , the car that drove away after the shooting , that car then went to this street .
And then we see one of the people go into the house and they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then through Baltimore ’ s already vast amounts of surveillance , namely , we have a city watch program here , which is almost a thousand cameras that record street corners , blue light cameras you see on the wire and all those things .
We have a bunch of those in Baltimore .
And so those will be sort of cross referenced and in theory you can solve crimes through that .
I bring this all up because an evidence packet was precisely what was given to police and prosecutors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police and prosecutors ignored it .
And the prosecutors said that it didn ’ t show what the plane people said it showed .
So there ’ s kind of already , so even there ’ s one example where it was perhaps could have helped a person four years ago .
The police and the prosecutors , they either tried to avoid dealing with it or they just straight up said the footage is not helpful , even though it ’ s since been shown it would have really , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so there ’ s that .
And then really quickly you have obviously Fourth Amendment concerns .
You know you have the right to like a reasonable search and seizure .
The most obvious way to look at that as like , if I was sitting in my car and I was in a van and I got a handgun on the backseat and a cop walks by , that ’ s in plain view .
P-L-A-I-N , not plane , plain view .
Cop was like , Hey man , I walked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun in there .
I got to kind of look into that .
But if it ’ s not in plain view , the officer needs to have a warrant .
What the plane does is , it creates everything in plain view and that ’ s a big problem .
And that ’ s a huge headache and concern for constitutional lawyers , for sure .
And it creates the sort of assumption that we ’ ve all agreed to this , whether we have or not is another problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can see over your fence that you ’ re doing something wrong , then they ’ re allowed to sort of say , Hey , it ’ s in plain view .
I can come in .
If you say they can ’ t they need to get a warrant or something like that .
So there ’ s that .
Also Harrison has said it ’ s only going to be used in this pilot program to investigate homicides , non-fatal shootings , robberies , car carjackings , violent crimes .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defense attorney like Ivan Bates , is this footage kind of only being used against people .
It ’ s not really being used to exonerate people or get them , again , with the Richards case is such a glaring example of it where it showed lies .
They ’ ve explicitly been asked by reporters will you use this to look at police conduct .
They said , no .
Kim Brown : Wait a minute .
The company said that this tool can be used to review police conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s not the way that we want to use this .
Kim Brown : They said that out loud .
Brandon Soderberg : Yeah , yeah .
They were asked .
And they were kind of like , well perhaps you know down the line , but , and I bring this all up again because the Gun Trace Task Force scandals begins in 2017 and is still ongoing .
It was really sort of , you know , is massive amounts of mistrust .
There is a way in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were looking at the footage the plane guy in 2016 was telling them to look at , then we could have possibly exposed this like sort of massive ring of drug dealing within the police department early because cops adjacent to it were caught lying and maybe there could have been some way to move through that and they could have started looking at these other cops , things like that .
And their crimes were so egregious .
I mean even with this Jawan Richards shooting , just really , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I ’ m writing about and the most shocking thing , many shocking things , but one of the most shocking things about it is when you watch the footage , you get to see it like frame by frame .
There ’ s this little clock , so you get to see the seconds tick by .
Kim Brown : So it ’ s not rolling video footage , it ’ s still images ?
Brandon Soderberg : But it ’ s a series of still images .
Yeah .
Yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see the two cars that the cops were in , pull up and within seconds they ’ re shooting at Richards .
So that ’ s the kind of information that would have been glaringly obvious to anyone that would have reviewed the footage , it would have vastly contradicted what the police said because their whole story was , Richards tried to get away from us when we stopped him .
He backed in , he did all these things , the footage contradicts a great deal of that .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal of it .
And it shows that they kind of played fast and loose with the facts to make Richards look worse than he , whatever he did .
Kim Brown : Is his attorney trying to get his conviction thrown out ?
Brandon Soderberg : Okay .
So that ’ s another complicated thing .
I apologize .
He is .
The motion is to say this should , to get this overturned off his record , exonerate , vacate this conviction .
At the same time , there is another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office now to get rid of Richards ’ conviction as well .
Now their motion is essentially the same , vacate this conviction , but what the state ’ s attorney ’ s office wants to do is they want to simply say it ’ s because these officers have been indicted , their integrity is compromised , we ’ re getting rid of all these cases .
They become part of these 290 cops .
There ’ s 25 that State ’ s Attorney Mosby right now is focusing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and just like vacating or getting people out of jail .
I bring that up because , in a sense , this motion that I wrote about by basis , it ’ s duplicative of another motion , they are both trying to do the same thing .
But the major differences that the state ’ s attorneys want it as simple as like these cops have integrity issues so we ’ ve got to get it out and it kind of cleans it up a little bit and that ’ s certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He feels like it cleans it up a little bit because , okay , you can S you can , let ’ s give everyone the benefit of the doubt , whether we should or not , let ’ s just do it for a second here .
Okay .
You didn ’ t know about any of this misbehavior of these cops until it ’ s all exposed by the federal government , by the Department of Justice , that the exception at least with be with this case , cause there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the plane guy was telling them to look at .
And so separate from anything that came out years later because of federal investigations , there is nothing other than a negligence on the part of the department and the state ’ s attorney ’ s office that prevented them from knowing this was a questionable charge .
So why Jawan Richards had to wait four years until the federal government came and investigated the Baltimore Police Department and started dropping indictments on their heads .
It ’ s only because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has nothing to do with this case at all .
And Ivan Bates has sort of put this motion out .
He said , to kind of show the full story of what happened to Jawan Richards , which was not as simple as , Hey , these cops are dirty so we just get all their cases out .
That ’ s the clean way to fix this .
Like we don ’ t know what these guys were doing .
We knew they lie a lot .
This was saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time that they could have had access to if they felt like it , that would have long ago exonerated Richards .
Kim Brown : So Brandon , we ’ re running a little low on time , but I wanted to ask you about the billionaire philanthropists who are funding the spy plane program , the aerial surveillance program , which is going to again , be in the skies over Baltimore this summer .
Who are these people ?
Why do they have money to spend to put a plane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why do they care ?
Brandon Soderberg : Yeah , it ’ s a whole other thing .
Yeah .
I don ’ t know why anybody with a lot of money does anything , but they ’ re the Arnold ’ s , it ’ s a couple who are billionaires based in Houston .
They have funded … this plane won ’ t cost the city of Baltimore anything monetarily .
We are selling our private lives to it every day that it records this stuff .
Kim Brown : And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point during his press conference he said , and this is not going to cost the city taxpayers a dime and that should set off alarm bells .
I would think to the average person who concerned about privacy .
Brandon Soderberg : Yeah , right , exactly .
And so that ’ s kind of the pitch here is Hey , it ’ s free , we can just take it .
The city doesn ’ t have to pay anything for it .
Anyway , the Arnold ’ s are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plan in the past .
In 2016 , they funded it and they ’ ve become interested in it I guess because they think it ’ s an interesting kind of like technocratic solution to crime .
Why they care about Baltimore , their connection to Baltimore is I think entirely because the plane , it ’ s sort of low trying to locate a city that they wanted to try it in , which is what the company wants to do , try to sell it .
They located Baltimore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate is high .
But I don ’ t , there ’ s no real connection between the city and the Arnold ’ s .
They haven ’ t said anything other than I think they ’ d see this as a valid thing to consider as a way of stopping crime , which I ’ d add that during the test flight in 2016 , it was very ineffective .
Council president Brandon Scott , who used to run the public safety committee , has especially been a major critic of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traum-oriented solutions , basic police solutions that we haven ’ t gotten right that would reduce crime much more efficiently than this plane .
And then of course that ’ s again this side thing , there was this thing that it captured that was a crime that they willingly , that the police and the prosecutors , willingly ignored .
Kim Brown : Indeed .
Well , it ’ s a very fascinating and complex series of events , but I definitely suggest that you go to theappeal.org and check out Brandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been speaking today with Brandon Soderberg in his latest piece .
Like I said , theappeal.org , it ’ s titled Baltimore Defense Attorneys Claim Surveillance Plane Footage Contradicts Law Enforcement Account of Police Shooting .
Brandon ’ s also the coauthor of the forthcoming book due out in July called , I Got a Monster .
Brandon , we appreciate you coming in and taking the time to explain this as best as you could .
Kim Brown : Because this is insane , but I ’ m definitely going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the spy plane because this is going to be happening all summer .
So if you ’ re in Baltimore , don ’ t look up and you see the plane flying over your head this summer .
Brandon , we appreciate your time today .
Brandon Soderberg : Thanks for having me .
Kim Brown : Thank you .
And thank you for watching the Real News Network .

The plane operator discovered footage that shows Baltimore police could have lied about the shooting of a local man, but police brass didn’t want to see it.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Kim Brown: Welcome to the Real News. I’m Kim Brown. The Baltimore City Police Department is corrupt, period, and residents here have valid and well-documented reasons to disbelieve when those in top leadership proclaimed dedication to transparency and accountability within their own ranks. Since the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in police custody, BPD has been put under a federal consent decree with around a dozen officers indicted and found guilty of a myriad of felonies against the community and nearly 300 cops placed on a do not call to testify in court lists by the city state’s attorney’s office because of their willingness to lie. Now, despite all of this, Baltimore police continue to receive the lion’s share of the city’s budget and has even been offered outside help to allegedly fight crime.
In 2017, it was revealed that the police unbenounced to elected officials and the public at large allowed a privately funded spy plane to surveil the city during 2016. The purpose supposedly being to catch violent criminals and turns out the plane did capture a police shooting involving at least two cops who were convicted criminally on other incidents. But the attorney of the man shot says the spy plane footage could prove that the cops lied about this incident as well. This is all according to a new piece in theappeal.org by Brandon Soderberg. He is a Baltimore-based journalist and co-author of the forthcoming book about police corruption in Baltimore titled, I got a Monster and he joins us today in studio. Brandon, thank you so much for being here.
Brandon Soderberg: Thanks for having me.
Kim Brown: So let’s go back if we could to 2016 where there is a surveillance plane flying the skies of Baltimore city and everyone does not know this, but it happens to catch an incident involving a man named Jawan Richards, can you tell us what happened?
Brandon Soderberg: Sure, yeah. Really briefly, there was a spy plane. It’s a privately funded kind of developed by military technology, guy named Ross McNutt who runs a company called Persistent Surveillance Solutions. The plane was flying secretly because it was allegedly supposed to be capturing mostly violent crimes. It was flying from January to June and then a little into the summer anyway, and it works by, it’s a bunch of cameras that are always recording the city, 30 square miles at a time. In one of its flights on January 27th, 2016 it happens to catch on the kind of corner of its coverage, a police shooting. Two police officers, four police officers stop a man named Jawan Richards in two different cars. They stop him and they end up shooting him. They shoot him through the windshield of the car and he gets shot in the neck once. They later charge him with possession of a handgun and I think cannabis possession.
And then the story went, as police shooting, Mr. Richards tried to drive away. He tried to hit one of the cops with his car. He tried to crash into the cop cars. We had to shoot him. That was kind of the official story and that was really the story that happened with Richards up until a little earlier this year when Ivan Bates, Richards’ attorney finally was able to review plane footage of the incident. He didn’t even fully understand what the plane was at the time. No one really told him. And so he didn’t get this footage and his client ultimately pled guilty as a lot of people do. And so by September of 2016, eight months after the shooting, Richards is already pleading guilty, already about to be sentenced. And it’s around that same time that the police and the state’s attorney’s office find out via the spy plane folks that, Hey, this was captured. And according to Ivan Bates’ motion, which involved talking to this plane technologist Ross McNutt. Ross McNutt says that, we’re not interested in seeing the footage-
Kim Brown: When you say they, you mean Baltimore police, right?
Brandon Soderberg: Yeah, yeah.
Kim Brown: The operator of the plane, the spy plane. That they were not interested in seeing this footage that depicted their officers involved in a civilian incident where someone ended up shot. The cops were not interested in this.
Brandon Soderberg: Yeah, right. Yeah. So one of the things that plane’s busy doing is capturing events, rewinding the footage and sort of giving police investigative tools by saying, Hey, the shooter of this alleged thing, they were in this car and they went this way or they went this, we could run the footage and watch it and ideally sort of get more investigative tools for a crime. So, and Ross McNutt, the plane guy, he would sort of investigate shootings the police asked them to because he was really trying to push his plane. When he would just see stuff on the news, he would go dig up the footage. That’s what he did with this.
He immediately reached out to police, be like, Hey, that police shooting from a little while ago, my plane captured that. And they said at the time, and I stress really that this is all in a motion, which defense theory Ivan Bates was able to have Ross sign an affidavit that says essentially the equivalent of sworn testimony, which Ross McNutt says, when I told the police about this, they said, we’re not really interested, if that gets out there are kind of exposed at the planes flying secretly. We didn’t really want to have that happen. By which I’d say, so they fly this plane secretly to capture crime. It captures a crime. They’re like, well, if we reveal it then it will reveal the plane. It’s kind of crazy. And then, yeah, sorry.
Kim Brown: I want to ask you about-
Brandon Soderberg: It’s complicated.
Kim Brown: It is a little complicated. But I want everyone who is concerned about the person who got shot.
How is Jawan Richards doing? I mean, what was the extent of his injuries? And you mentioned that he was charged with a crime, a couple of crimes actually in connection to this incident. So what happened with him? Is he, okay, first of all, and second of all, is he in jail or is he-
Brandon Soderberg: He’s now out. He’s already served his sentence for this because it’s almost, it’s more than four years later. Richards ultimately was okay. I mean, he was shot in the neck. He survived. I guess I should stress, if that wasn’t clear. I don’t know his health in general, but I mean he’s out of jail now. And this motion is sort of one of an attempt to vacate his sentence because of the supposedly lies that the plane shows.
Kim Brown: So there’s so much corruption and so many different stories of corruption percolating throughout Baltimore Police Department. And the fact that two of the officers on the scene were charged criminally, not with this incident, but a separate incident. Can you talk to us about who these cops are and what they were charged with?
Brandon Soderberg: Sure. So the two cops that shot Jawan Richards in January 2016 were Carmine Vignola and Robert Hankard. They were sort of tangentially related to what’s called the Gun Trace Task Force, which is a group of seven cops in an ongoing federal investigation of police corruption. These seven cops who were all indicted in March of 2017 were stealing from people, robbing drug dealers.
Kim Brown: Stealing from citizens.
Brandon Soderberg: Stealing from citizens, robbing drug dealers, re-dealing drugs, planting guns on people. A lot of different things. In this sort of ongoing investigation, it sort of spiraled out. In total I think a dozen cops now had been somehow criminally charged. But in 2019, Vignola, who was one of the shooters, was charged and earlier this year, Robert Hankard was finally charged. And what they were charged with was a 2014 case in which the Gun Trace Task Force leader, Wayne Jenkins, ran a man over and then why he ran them over, I don’t know. He ran this man over and then he called a few cops, including Hankard and Vignola and was like, Hey, anybody got a gun or a BB gun I could plant on somebody to kind of justify saying, Hey, I thought he had a gun. He was going to aim it at me. I had to run him over.
And so they were both, Vignola and Hankard, who shot Richards were indicted for that in 2019 and 2020. So then it’s sort of been attorney. Ivan Bates’ head sort of rings like, Oh, those are those officers from my other case in 2016 Richards. He starts to dig into it more. It’s about the same time all this was happening because of reporting I had been doing on these corrupt cops that I learned that the police shooting of Richards was captured by a plane. I was able to get some documents that showed that. I was able to speak to the plain guy, Ross McNutt, who confirmed it. I eventually got this sort of big evidence packet from a few different sources. I was able to confirm this happen and so when the plane was announced at the beginning end of 2019 that was going to fly this May, I published a quick story about it and just was like, Hey, by the way, everybody, it captured a police shooting and not only that, but the plane guy, Ross’s argument was, he said to the police, this contradicts what the police claimed.
And from that, just to see how kind of cloaked in secrecy this all was, it was only because of that story. And I’m not trying to pat myself on the back, just the sequence of events that happened, was because of that story, Richards’ attorney Ivan Bates, called me and was like, “Wait, there’s video of this thing?”, and I was like, yeah, there’s video of it. So then Ivan Bates was able to talk to plane guy and much to the credit of Ross McNutt, the plane surveillance guy, he was like, sure, I’ll show you the footage and I’ll sign an affidavit. I tried to do all these things and so Ivan eventually sees the footage and really starts to see the contradictions of it.
Kim Brown: Well and see and that’s the stunning thing and I do want us to circle back because we need to make it clear, like the police are flying a spy plane over Baltimore city for the purposes of catching crimes. The plane caught a crime committed allegedly by police and the police are not interested in it and the plane is going to fly again actually and we’re going to hear from Baltimore Police Commissioner, Michael Harrison. He’s announcing, as Brandon just said, that the spy plane is going to return to Baltimore skies in May of 2020. Let’s take a listen.
Michael Harriso…: The pilot program will be limited in scope to only investigating past events and will not be used for real time active surveillance, meaning there is no real live streaming and live feeds. Second, the video feeds will not be directly accessible by Baltimore Police Department officers. Instead, the company supplying the planes will provide us with evidence packages that are specific to incidents that have already been reported. Third, the information collected during the pilot program will only be used by the department to investigate the most serious offenses, specifically murders, shootings, armed robberies to include carjackings. Fourth, there will be an independent third party civilian auditing team that will review BPDs use of the program to ensure that we are following the program’s exact guidelines on privacy, inappropriate use of the system. There will also be independent group of research partners to assess what the impact of the pilot program was on clearance rates, solvability of crimes and any crime suppression that can be observed.
Kim Brown: So Brandon, we just heard from the Baltimore Police Commissioner there, Michael Harrison in which he outlines the ways in which this plane will be used again in another trial run. This one, we’re going to tell everybody about –
Brandon Soderberg: It’s at least not secret this time.
Kim Brown: The first one was completely secret, but a couple of things that he said. He said that the city is going to rely on independent third party oversight and also going to rely on independent researchers to ascertain whether or not the plane is actually effective in clearance rates for a particular crime. So in your opinion, just based on your reporting, do you think that the city is disclosing enough about the kind of information that is being collected, who has access to it, where it will be stored? You know, because really this is in the hands of a private entity and not really subject to public oversight.
Brandon Soderberg: Right. So I mean they’re certainly saying it’s going to … we’ll know it’s in the air, but a lot of the details are really fuzzy and I think they’re kind of cloaking in this like, well this is just a test. We’re just, this is the pilot program so we don’t have to have it all worked out. That’s why we’re flying this plane secretly over the city … unsecretly over the city this time so we can figure out all the details. But the immediate questions to ask is like, so now the police won’t have any access to it. So it all be private. The private company, Persistent Surveillance and their technician. So just dudes that the technology guy hires will be looking at this footage of access to these guys.
Kim Brown: Who are these guys? Do they have security clearances, like they’re not state employees, they’re not employees of the police department.
Brandon Soderberg: They’re hired by the … and then there’s … to really give credit to the reporter who broke this all open, which was initially in a Bloomberg Businessweek article back in 2016, that was the first article exposed it. That article goes through some of the hiring practices and a McNutt’s company mostly focused on people who are good at video games because it’s a lot like a video game to watch and manipulate the footage. So it’s a bunch of video game dudes watching Baltimore all day, every day. So yeah, so there’s that, there’s that. And then the idea is that these private technicians will prepare evidence dossiers about what they’ve observed. So if there’s a shooting on X street at Y time, they’ll pull that footage up and they’ll say, here’s what we’ve observed. And by rewinding it or fast forwarding and in theory they can, you know, get some additional information.
Hey, the car that drove away after the shooting, that car then went to this street. And then we see one of the people go into the house and they should probably go look at that house. And then through Baltimore’s already vast amounts of surveillance, namely, we have a city watch program here, which is almost a thousand cameras that record street corners, blue light cameras you see on the wire and all those things. We have a bunch of those in Baltimore. And so those will be sort of cross referenced and in theory you can solve crimes through that. I bring this all up because an evidence packet was precisely what was given to police and prosecutors in 2016 when Jawan Richards was shot and the police and prosecutors ignored it. And the prosecutors said that it didn’t show what the plane people said it showed.
So there’s kind of already, so even there’s one example where it was perhaps could have helped a person four years ago. The police and the prosecutors, they either tried to avoid dealing with it or they just straight up said the footage is not helpful, even though it’s since been shown it would have really, it showed a lot of lies. And so there’s that. And then really quickly you have obviously Fourth Amendment concerns. You know you have the right to like a reasonable search and seizure. The most obvious way to look at that as like, if I was sitting in my car and I was in a van and I got a handgun on the backseat and a cop walks by, that’s in plain view. P-L-A-I-N, not plane, plain view. Cop was like, Hey man, I walked by your car, you got like a gun in there. I got to kind of look into that.
But if it’s not in plain view, the officer needs to have a warrant. What the plane does is, it creates everything in plain view and that’s a big problem. And that’s a huge headache and concern for constitutional lawyers, for sure. And it creates the sort of assumption that we’ve all agreed to this, whether we have or not is another problem. Same with like, if a cops can see over your fence that you’re doing something wrong, then they’re allowed to sort of say, Hey, it’s in plain view. I can come in. If you say they can’t they need to get a warrant or something like that. So there’s that. Also Harrison has said it’s only going to be used in this pilot program to investigate homicides, non-fatal shootings, robberies, car carjackings, violent crimes. What it does, if you’re a defense attorney like Ivan Bates, is this footage kind of only being used against people.
It’s not really being used to exonerate people or get them, again, with the Richards case is such a glaring example of it where it showed lies. They’ve explicitly been asked by reporters will you use this to look at police conduct. They said, no.
Kim Brown: Wait a minute. The company said that this tool can be used to review police conduct. The police themselves said, no, that’s not the way that we want to use this.
Brandon Soderberg: They’re presenting-
Kim Brown: They said that out loud.
Brandon Soderberg: Yeah, yeah. They were asked. And they were kind of like, well perhaps you know down the line, but, and I bring this all up again because the Gun Trace Task Force scandals begins in 2017 and is still ongoing. It was really sort of, you know, is massive amounts of mistrust. There is a way in which you could argue that if they were looking at the footage the plane guy in 2016 was telling them to look at, then we could have possibly exposed this like sort of massive ring of drug dealing within the police department early because cops adjacent to it were caught lying and maybe there could have been some way to move through that and they could have started looking at these other cops, things like that.
And their crimes were so egregious. I mean even with this Jawan Richards shooting, just really, you know, I’ve seen this footage that I’m writing about and the most shocking thing, many shocking things, but one of the most shocking things about it is when you watch the footage, you get to see it like frame by frame. There’s this little clock, so you get to see the seconds tick by.
Kim Brown: So it’s not rolling video footage, it’s still images?
Brandon Soderberg: But it’s a series of still images. Yeah. Yeah. And when you watch it, you see the two cars that the cops were in, pull up and within seconds they’re shooting at Richards. So that’s the kind of information that would have been glaringly obvious to anyone that would have reviewed the footage, it would have vastly contradicted what the police said because their whole story was, Richards tried to get away from us when we stopped him. He backed in, he did all these things, the footage contradicts a great deal of that. Not all of it, but a great deal of it. And it shows that they kind of played fast and loose with the facts to make Richards look worse than he, whatever he did.
Kim Brown: Is his attorney trying to get his conviction thrown out?
Brandon Soderberg: Okay. So that’s another complicated thing. I apologize. He is. The motion is to say this should, to get this overturned off his record, exonerate, vacate this conviction. At the same time, there is another motion by the state’s attorney’s office now to get rid of Richards’ conviction as well. Now their motion is essentially the same, vacate this conviction, but what the state’s attorney’s office wants to do is they want to simply say it’s because these officers have been indicted, their integrity is compromised, we’re getting rid of all these cases. They become part of these 290 cops. There’s 25 that State’s Attorney Mosby right now is focusing on, sort of moving through these cases and just like vacating or getting people out of jail.
I bring that up because, in a sense, this motion that I wrote about by basis, it’s duplicative of another motion, they are both trying to do the same thing. But the major differences that the state’s attorneys want it as simple as like these cops have integrity issues so we’ve got to get it out and it kind of cleans it up a little bit and that’s certainly what Ivan Bates said to me. He feels like it cleans it up a little bit because, okay, you can S you can, let’s give everyone the benefit of the doubt, whether we should or not, let’s just do it for a second here. Okay. You didn’t know about any of this misbehavior of these cops until it’s all exposed by the federal government, by the Department of Justice, that the exception at least with be with this case, cause there was a plane that captured it, that the plane guy was telling them to look at.
And so separate from anything that came out years later because of federal investigations, there is nothing other than a negligence on the part of the department and the state’s attorney’s office that prevented them from knowing this was a questionable charge. So why Jawan Richards had to wait four years until the federal government came and investigated the Baltimore Police Department and started dropping indictments on their heads. It’s only because of those things that Richards is even … has nothing to do with this case at all. And Ivan Bates has sort of put this motion out. He said, to kind of show the full story of what happened to Jawan Richards, which was not as simple as, Hey, these cops are dirty so we just get all their cases out. That’s the clean way to fix this. Like we don’t know what these guys were doing. We knew they lie a lot. This was saying, Hey, there was this video at the time that they could have had access to if they felt like it, that would have long ago exonerated Richards.
Kim Brown: So Brandon, we’re running a little low on time, but I wanted to ask you about the billionaire philanthropists who are funding the spy plane program, the aerial surveillance program, which is going to again, be in the skies over Baltimore this summer. Who are these people? Why do they have money to spend to put a plane in the air over Baltimore city and why do they care?
Brandon Soderberg: Yeah, it’s a whole other thing. Yeah. I don’t know why anybody with a lot of money does anything, but they’re the Arnold’s, it’s a couple who are billionaires based in Houston. They have funded … this plane won’t cost the city of Baltimore anything monetarily. We are selling our private lives to it every day that it records this stuff.
Kim Brown: And Commissioner Harrison used that as a selling point during his press conference he said, and this is not going to cost the city taxpayers a dime and that should set off alarm bells. I would think to the average person who concerned about privacy.
Brandon Soderberg: Yeah, right, exactly. And so that’s kind of the pitch here is Hey, it’s free, we can just take it. The city doesn’t have to pay anything for it. Anyway, the Arnold’s are a sort of venture capitalists. They funded the plan in the past. In 2016, they funded it and they’ve become interested in it I guess because they think it’s an interesting kind of like technocratic solution to crime. Why they care about Baltimore, their connection to Baltimore is I think entirely because the plane, it’s sort of low trying to locate a city that they wanted to try it in, which is what the company wants to do, try to sell it. They located Baltimore, I think, because of our homicide rate is high. But I don’t, there’s no real connection between the city and the Arnold’s. They haven’t said anything other than I think they’d see this as a valid thing to consider as a way of stopping crime, which I’d add that during the test flight in 2016, it was very ineffective.
Council president Brandon Scott, who used to run the public safety committee, has especially been a major critic of it and say there are community-based solutions, traum-oriented solutions, basic police solutions that we haven’t gotten right that would reduce crime much more efficiently than this plane. And then of course that’s again this side thing, there was this thing that it captured that was a crime that they willingly, that the police and the prosecutors, willingly ignored.
Kim Brown: Indeed. Well, it’s a very fascinating and complex series of events, but I definitely suggest that you go to theappeal.org and check out Brandon’s story. We’ve been speaking today with Brandon Soderberg in his latest piece. Like I said, theappeal.org, it’s titled Baltimore Defense Attorneys Claim Surveillance Plane Footage Contradicts Law Enforcement Account of Police Shooting.
Brandon’s also the coauthor of the forthcoming book due out in July called, I Got a Monster. Brandon, we appreciate you coming in and taking the time to explain this as best as you could.
Brandon Soderberg: I tried.
Kim Brown: Because this is insane, but I’m definitely going to be interested in reading more of your reporting about the spy plane because this is going to be happening all summer. So if you’re in Baltimore, don’t look up and you see the plane flying over your head this summer. Brandon, we appreciate your time today.
Brandon Soderberg: Thanks for having me.
Kim Brown: Thank you. And thank you for watching the Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-26--Germany Is Failing to Take Racism Seriously

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg : It ’ s The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wolpert in Arlington , Virginia .
On February 19th , a man walked into a shisha bar in the town of Hanau , a suburb of Frankfurt , Germany , and began shooting with a nine-millimeter pistol , killing nine people there and in a nearby coffee shop .
He then went home , killed his mother , and took his own life .
This shooting has become a highly divisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killer ’ s racism .
Here ’ s how some of the leaders from Germany ’ s political parties reacted to the mass-shooting .
Chancellor Angela Merkel , of the Christian Democratic Party , Christian Lindner of the Neo Liberal Free Democratic Party , Robert Habeck of the Green Party and John Carter of the Left Party .
Greg : Jack [ inaudible 00:01:39 ] of the Far-right Alternative for Germany argued on Twitter that the shooting was neither a left wing or right wing attack , but just an act of insanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooter had legally registered weapons , that he was influenced by white supremacist ideology and sought to kill as many Muslims as possible .
The mass shooting and German politicians reactions to it , highlight the different ways in which Germany deals with right-wing extremists depending on whether they target Jews or Muslims .
Joining me now to discuss the different reactions to racist mass shootings is Shir Hever .
Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg , Germany and is the author of the book , The Privatization of Israeli Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 .
Also , he is a board member of the German organization , Jewish Voices for Just Peace in the Middle East .
Thanks for joining us today , Shir .
Shir : Thanks for having me , Greg .
Greg : So what was the official response of German authorities to the Hanau attack ?
And do you think that this was the correct way to respond ?
Shir : So the German police has been taken by surprise and is very embarrassed by this because apparently , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually reached out to the German police and to other institutions and tried to make contact with them because he was under the impression that his Islamophobic ideas would be welcomed by the government , by the police .
And he wanted to cooperate with them in the act of killing Muslims basically .
And they kind of brushed it away or it didn ’ t respond in time .
And so he went on and decided to commit murder on his own .
And I think that ’ s something that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying the problem is that a response is to decentralize and calling for not stricter gun control , because Germany already has quite strict gun control laws , but rather a more centralized system for controlling guns , a more centralized system for managing racism and hate crimes .
And I ’ m not completely sure that this is the right response that one should expect from the German police in this case .
In fact , one specific response with the German police was especially dis-concerning , because they said that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retaliatory attacks from Muslims .
So already , their initial responses to suspect the victims , the Muslim community in Germany of maybe planning some kind of counter attack and attacking people of … attacking Christians or Far-right white nationalists .
And interestingly , or very tellingly when there were other attacks in Germany for example , targeting Jews like there was in [ Hale 00:04:31 ] late last year , there was no similar statement with the police .
“ Oh , no .
Now the Jews are going to organize a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But one thing I do want to point out that I think was a very good response , and it came surprisingly from the Green Party in Germany , the Green Party in many ways has many conservative elements that I do not expect them to make the statement , but they ’ ve actually echoed something that left organizations and especially anti-racist organizations in Germany have been saying for years , that it doesn ’ t make any sense that Germany has an official government appointed employee to deal with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there is nobody to deal with other forms of racism .
And we need in Germany somebody who will be organizing the efforts in the education specifically on all kinds of racism regardless of whether the targets are Jews or Muslims or [ inaudible 00:05:39 ] .
Greg : Now , in Germany there are laws that prohibit Holocaust denial and state security organs are charged with the surveillance of organizations that are suspected of antisemitic activities as you point out .
And also there is a federal and state level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to this shooting in Hanau , there were polls that show that Islamophobia is actually much more widespread in Germany today than antisemitism is , and there are numerous attacks against Muslims and have been in recent years .
So why are German authorities focusing on the protection of Jews so exclusively and not of most Muslims ?
And is this now going to change after the Hanau attack ?
Shir : Well , I think it has a lot to do with the fact that in the German political discourse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a complete mix of Judaism and the state of Israel to the point that people have forgotten the historical facts of the Holocaust and many Germans don ’ t understand that the state of Israel was only founded after the Holocaust , and there was never a war between Germany and Israel .
In fact , the Jews that are being targeted in Germany by far-right crime , receive very little protection from the German state despite of all these mechanisms that you listed .
Because the people who are in charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and foremost among them is Dr. Felix Klein , who is the federal appointee for the issue of an antisemitism .
He doesn ’ t really concern himself so much with far-right racism .
He barely mentions or criticizes and the far-right party alternative for Germany and their antisemitic statements and history .
But rather , he ’ s focusing on criticism of the state of Israel .
And because of that , there is this kind of false equivalence as if you have the left on the one side and the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the extreme left and the extreme right around this medic .
That ’ s nonsense .
That ’ s just not the case .
And Muslims are in many ways on the same situation as Jews are , in many ways worse off than Jews in Germany today in the amount of stereotypes , and racism and discrimination that they are subjected to just because of their religion .
But the authorities and the government often considers them to be potential perpetrators rather than victims of racism , because the focus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not really a focus on antisemitism , it ’ s just a focus on criticizing the state of Israel .
And Jews are perceived as if they are somehow representative of that state , even though of course , most Jews in the world and most Jews in Germany are not supporting Israeli state policy and do not see themselves as representatives of the Israeli state .
And I think that ’ s a very big problem .
And we have here a problem of blaming the victim when newspapers in Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then immediately referring to Muslims , even if the perpetrators were not Muslims , or to the BDS movement as if that has anything to do with antisemitism and attacks on Jews in Germany and it does not .
And I think that needs to change .
That was the question .
Is it going to change ?
It needs to change .
The problem is , do Muslim communities have the power to change it just by their activity in civil society ?
I think on their own they do not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It only works when minority groups work together in solidarity to demand to be treated equally and with respect .
And the group that does have power in the German political system , is a state of Israel just because it ’ s a state , not because it ’ s particularly strong as a state , but it uses antisemitism as a tool to improve relationship with the German government instead of caring for the safety of persecuted minorities in Germany or in other countries .
Greg : Well , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but of course , the solidarity probably should also be coming from non Muslims and non Jews in Germany towards both of these populations .
And that ’ s a real problem as you say .
I think the issue of equating our criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism is just so prevalent , also in my experience .
But I also wanted to ask about your organization , Jewish Voice for Just Peace .
It has taken part in vigils and calls for a fight against all forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does this represent and mainstream view among German Jews ?
And how is the relationship between the many Jewish communities and Muslim communities in Germany anyway ?
Shir : Yeah .
Well , first of all , yes , our organization is definitely committed to a joint struggle against all forms of racism and for promoting peace .
And we are working together in demonstrations and other kinds of political activities together with groups representing other minorities , and also , groups that don ’ t necessarily represent minorities , but groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ re neither Muslim nor Jewish , but they still and want to join these coalitions of course .
I think that there is a kind of myth in Germany as if Jews and Muslims are inherently hostile to each other .
And that is absolutely a myth because of course , in history , the relationship between Jews and Muslims has been far better than they have been between Jews and Christians , or between Christians and Muslims .
So in many ways that that kind of mythology is part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called Judeo-Christian culture , which is a very racist concept .
And of course , we rejected completely .
But I do think that when we talk about the German Jews and how they respond to these things , you have a lot of people who just don ’ t want to deal necessarily with politics and we don ’ t necessarily want to have their Judaism part of their public life at all .
And they say that ’ s a private thing .
And it doesn ’ t matter if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way that I choose my political opinions , that ’ s absolutely fine and respectable .
But there are also Jews on the left and Jews on the right .
And my organization is of course , an organization of Jews on the left who are progressive and demand equal rights , human rights and so on .
There are also unfortunately , Jews on the right and even on the far-right .
And I feel the need to mention that in Hamburg , there was this organization called , German-Israeli Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is organizing an event in a synagogue in Hamburg on March 29th inviting professor [ inaudible 00:13:20 ] from Israel to speak about Islamic culture and how evil it is .
[ inaudible 00:13:29 ] is a well known Islamophobe .
He has called for raping the sisters and mothers of Muslim terrorists in order to discourage terrorism .
That is his idea for a solution .
Now the problem is that this is a far-right group .
This is a hate crime and this is incitement to racism .
If the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , a mosque inviting some extremist preacher from … or a professor from Iran to give a talk about the values of Judaism in a way like that and calling for rape and other forms of violence , that would ’ ve been illegal .
That person would never have received a visa to enter Germany in the first place .
German law does not allow freedom of speech to that extent , except when it is organized by this far-right Jewish group .
Because this group which is funded by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be almost above the law because limiting their speech would be considered to be a form of antisemitism , which is of course , nonsense .
And I think it ’ s not that the right wing Jews who reject solidarity with Muslim groups are more .
They ’ re not more of them .
It ’ s just that they receive more institutional support .
And we know that Felix Klein … I mentioned it before , the official for fighting antisemitism , he ’ s a good friend of the German-Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and speaking to them directly because they are his partners , but he , the same man , is boycotting our group , refusing to meet with Jewish Voice For Just Peace because according to him , we are possible antisemites .
So I think this is a question I would like to pose for our audience , for you , what do you think is a better way to protect Jewish life in Germany ?
Is it to form solidarity with other groups who are suffering from racism ?
Or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , we ’ re only interested in racism against Jews antisemitism , but all other forms of racism just don ’ t interest us.
” Greg : Yeah .
I think that ’ s an excellent question , but we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
I was speaking to Shir Hever , Real News correspondent based in Heidelberg , Germany .
Thanks again Shir for having joined us today .
Greg : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .

A white supremacist in Hanau murdered ten people. German authorities, however, refuse to acknowledge the connection between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, considering only the latter to be worthy of attention.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wolpert in Arlington, Virginia. On February 19th, a man walked into a shisha bar in the town of Hanau, a suburb of Frankfurt, Germany, and began shooting with a nine-millimeter pistol, killing nine people there and in a nearby coffee shop. He then went home, killed his mother, and took his own life. This shooting has become a highly divisive political issue in Germany because of the killer’s racism. Here’s how some of the leaders from Germany’s political parties reacted to the mass-shooting. Chancellor Angela Merkel, of the Christian Democratic Party, Christian Lindner of the Neo Liberal Free Democratic Party, Robert Habeck of the Green Party and John Carter of the Left Party.
Greg: Jack [inaudible 00:01:39] of the Far-right Alternative for Germany argued on Twitter that the shooting was neither a left wing or right wing attack, but just an act of insanity. The German police discovered that the shooter had legally registered weapons, that he was influenced by white supremacist ideology and sought to kill as many Muslims as possible. The mass shooting and German politicians reactions to it, highlight the different ways in which Germany deals with right-wing extremists depending on whether they target Jews or Muslims. Joining me now to discuss the different reactions to racist mass shootings is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany and is the author of the book, The Privatization of Israeli Security that was published by Pluto Press in 2017. Also, he is a board member of the German organization, Jewish Voices for Just Peace in the Middle East. Thanks for joining us today, Shir.
Shir: Thanks for having me, Greg.
Greg: So what was the official response of German authorities to the Hanau attack? And do you think that this was the correct way to respond?
Shir: So the German police has been taken by surprise and is very embarrassed by this because apparently, according to the records, this man … the killer actually reached out to the German police and to other institutions and tried to make contact with them because he was under the impression that his Islamophobic ideas would be welcomed by the government, by the police. And he wanted to cooperate with them in the act of killing Muslims basically. And they kind of brushed it away or it didn’t respond in time. And so he went on and decided to commit murder on his own. And I think that’s something that the German police is now responding to by saying the problem is that a response is to decentralize and calling for not stricter gun control, because Germany already has quite strict gun control laws, but rather a more centralized system for controlling guns, a more centralized system for managing racism and hate crimes.
And I’m not completely sure that this is the right response that one should expect from the German police in this case. In fact, one specific response with the German police was especially dis-concerning, because they said that they are now preparing for counter attacks or retaliatory attacks from Muslims. So already, their initial responses to suspect the victims, the Muslim community in Germany of maybe planning some kind of counter attack and attacking people of … attacking Christians or Far-right white nationalists. And interestingly, or very tellingly when there were other attacks in Germany for example, targeting Jews like there was in [Hale 00:04:31] late last year, there was no similar statement with the police. “Oh, no. Now the Jews are going to organize a counter attack and attack a white nationalist.”
But one thing I do want to point out that I think was a very good response, and it came surprisingly from the Green Party in Germany, the Green Party in many ways has many conservative elements that I do not expect them to make the statement, but they’ve actually echoed something that left organizations and especially anti-racist organizations in Germany have been saying for years, that it doesn’t make any sense that Germany has an official government appointed employee to deal with the matter of antisemitism, racism against Jews, but there is nobody to deal with other forms of racism. And we need in Germany somebody who will be organizing the efforts in the education specifically on all kinds of racism regardless of whether the targets are Jews or Muslims or [inaudible 00:05:39].
Greg: Now, in Germany there are laws that prohibit Holocaust denial and state security organs are charged with the surveillance of organizations that are suspected of antisemitic activities as you point out. And also there is a federal and state level official charged with combating antisemitism. But prior to this shooting in Hanau, there were polls that show that Islamophobia is actually much more widespread in Germany today than antisemitism is, and there are numerous attacks against Muslims and have been in recent years. So why are German authorities focusing on the protection of Jews so exclusively and not of most Muslims? And is this now going to change after the Hanau attack?
Shir: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that in the German political discourse, in the German political culture, there is a complete mix of Judaism and the state of Israel to the point that people have forgotten the historical facts of the Holocaust and many Germans don’t understand that the state of Israel was only founded after the Holocaust, and there was never a war between Germany and Israel. In fact, the Jews that are being targeted in Germany by far-right crime, receive very little protection from the German state despite of all these mechanisms that you listed. Because the people who are in charge of fighting antisemitism for Germany … first and foremost among them is Dr. Felix Klein, who is the federal appointee for the issue of an antisemitism. He doesn’t really concern himself so much with far-right racism.
He barely mentions or criticizes and the far-right party alternative for Germany and their antisemitic statements and history. But rather, he’s focusing on criticism of the state of Israel. And because of that, there is this kind of false equivalence as if you have the left on the one side and the right on the one side, and both of the extreme left and the extreme right around this medic. That’s nonsense. That’s just not the case. And Muslims are in many ways on the same situation as Jews are, in many ways worse off than Jews in Germany today in the amount of stereotypes, and racism and discrimination that they are subjected to just because of their religion. But the authorities and the government often considers them to be potential perpetrators rather than victims of racism, because the focus is specifically on antisemitism, but it’s not really a focus on antisemitism, it’s just a focus on criticizing the state of Israel.
And Jews are perceived as if they are somehow representative of that state, even though of course, most Jews in the world and most Jews in Germany are not supporting Israeli state policy and do not see themselves as representatives of the Israeli state. And I think that’s a very big problem. And we have here a problem of blaming the victim when newspapers in Germany are talking about antisemitic attacks, and then immediately referring to Muslims, even if the perpetrators were not Muslims, or to the BDS movement as if that has anything to do with antisemitism and attacks on Jews in Germany and it does not. And I think that needs to change. That was the question. Is it going to change?
It needs to change. The problem is, do Muslim communities have the power to change it just by their activity in civil society? I think on their own they do not, but neither do the Jewish communities. It only works when minority groups work together in solidarity to demand to be treated equally and with respect. And the group that does have power in the German political system, is a state of Israel just because it’s a state, not because it’s particularly strong as a state, but it uses antisemitism as a tool to improve relationship with the German government instead of caring for the safety of persecuted minorities in Germany or in other countries.
Greg: Well, I think your point about solidarity is very important, but of course, the solidarity probably should also be coming from non Muslims and non Jews in Germany towards both of these populations. And that’s a real problem as you say. I think the issue of equating our criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism is just so prevalent, also in my experience. But I also wanted to ask about your organization, Jewish Voice for Just Peace. It has taken part in vigils and calls for a fight against all forms of racism, not just antisemitism. Now, does this represent and mainstream view among German Jews? And how is the relationship between the many Jewish communities and Muslim communities in Germany anyway?
Shir: Yeah. Well, first of all, yes, our organization is definitely committed to a joint struggle against all forms of racism and for promoting peace. And we are working together in demonstrations and other kinds of political activities together with groups representing other minorities, and also, groups that don’t necessarily represent minorities, but groups on the left that believe in solidarity and they’re neither Muslim nor Jewish, but they still and want to join these coalitions of course. I think that there is a kind of myth in Germany as if Jews and Muslims are inherently hostile to each other. And that is absolutely a myth because of course, in history, the relationship between Jews and Muslims has been far better than they have been between Jews and Christians, or between Christians and Muslims. So in many ways that that kind of mythology is part of perpetrating far-right’s vision of the so-called Judeo-Christian culture, which is a very racist concept. And of course, we rejected completely.
But I do think that when we talk about the German Jews and how they respond to these things, you have a lot of people who just don’t want to deal necessarily with politics and we don’t necessarily want to have their Judaism part of their public life at all. And they say that’s a private thing. And it doesn’t matter if I’m Jewish or not in the way that I choose my political opinions, that’s absolutely fine and respectable. But there are also Jews on the left and Jews on the right. And my organization is of course, an organization of Jews on the left who are progressive and demand equal rights, human rights and so on. There are also unfortunately, Jews on the right and even on the far-right. And I feel the need to mention that in Hamburg, there was this organization called, German-Israeli Society in Germany. And the German-Israeli Society is organizing an event in a synagogue in Hamburg on March 29th inviting professor [inaudible 00:13:20] from Israel to speak about Islamic culture and how evil it is.
[inaudible 00:13:29] is a well known Islamophobe. He has called for raping the sisters and mothers of Muslim terrorists in order to discourage terrorism. That is his idea for a solution. Now the problem is that this is a far-right group. This is a hate crime and this is incitement to racism. If the situation was different, if it was for example, a mosque inviting some extremist preacher from … or a professor from Iran to give a talk about the values of Judaism in a way like that and calling for rape and other forms of violence, that would’ve been illegal. That person would never have received a visa to enter Germany in the first place. German law does not allow freedom of speech to that extent, except when it is organized by this far-right Jewish group. Because this group which is funded by the state of Israel, is considered to be almost above the law because limiting their speech would be considered to be a form of antisemitism, which is of course, nonsense.
And I think it’s not that the right wing Jews who reject solidarity with Muslim groups are more. They’re not more of them. It’s just that they receive more institutional support. And we know that Felix Klein … I mentioned it before, the official for fighting antisemitism, he’s a good friend of the German-Israeli Society. He has no problem visiting them and speaking to them directly because they are his partners, but he, the same man, is boycotting our group, refusing to meet with Jewish Voice For Just Peace because according to him, we are possible antisemites. So I think this is a question I would like to pose for our audience, for you, what do you think is a better way to protect Jewish life in Germany? Is it to form solidarity with other groups who are suffering from racism? Or to create a separation and say, “Well, we’re only interested in racism against Jews antisemitism, but all other forms of racism just don’t interest us.”
Greg: Yeah. I think that’s an excellent question, but we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Shir Hever, Real News correspondent based in Heidelberg, Germany. Thanks again Shir for having joined us today.
Shir: Thank you, Greg.
Greg: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-26--Is Medicare for All Bad for Union-Negotiated Healthcare?

As Bernie Sanders surges ahead in the race for the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination , many of the attacks against him have honed in on how his Medicare for All plan would supposedly hurt unionized workers who have good health insurance .
During the ninth Democratic debate in Nevada last week , moderator Chuck Todd summarized the issue as follows.Chuck Todd : I ’ m going to stay on this topic , on this issue with the Culinary Union .
Obviously , their leaders are warning their members about … that your healthcare plan will take away their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely .
There are some Democrats who like you a lot but worry that this plan , Medicare for All , is going to take away private insurance and that it goes too far .
Are they right ?
Greg Wilpert : Chuck Todd was referring to the Nevada Culinary Workers Union , which had criticized Sanders ’ Medicare for All plan and which several other candidates used as an opportunity to attack Sanders as being anti-union .
But what ’ s behind this ?
Why are unions such as the Nevada Culinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Medicare for All ?
And would Sanders ’ Medicare for All proposal really be a problem for workers with good employer-provided health insurance plans ?
Joining me to explore this issue is Mark Dudzic .
He is the National Coordinator with the Labor Campaign for Single Payer .
Also , he is the author of an article published in the journal of New Politics titled Take My Benefits—Please !
, which explores how unions would benefit from Medicare for All and why so many of them remain reluctant to endorse the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mark.Mark Dudzic : Great to be with you.Greg Wilpert : Let ’ s start with a relatively common argument , which Joe Biden , Peter Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , Mike Bloomberg also raised during the Nevada debate , that Medicare for All , by eliminating private health insurance plans , would get rid of hard-fought union benefits and would thus hurt unions and workers .
What ’ s your reaction to that argument ?
Mark Dudzic : Yeah , well , I think first of all that that is now actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement , that there ’ s been a real sea change in perceptions about employment-based healthcare , and it ’ s a growing consensus that it turned out not to be a very good idea to link healthcare to employment .
And we ’ re dealing with a , basically , an unsustainable system here .
We have to bargain more and more money every contract , we have to sacrifice wages and other benefits in order to maintain payment into the world ’ s most expensive and inefficient healthcare system , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s causing strikes , lockouts , concession bargaining .
It ’ s driving wage stagnation for both union and non-union workers .
And we need to transition into a Medicare for All solution in order to take healthcare off the bargaining table and strengthen our bargaining power both as individual workers and as unions .
Greg Wilpert : Now , one of the arguments or concerns that are often raised in connection with how Medicare for All would affect the employer-provided health insurance that unions managed to get is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as those plans , the existing private plans .
What ’ s your response to that concern ?
Mark Dudzic : Look , I would challenge anybody to show me a union plan that is as good as the level of benefits proposed in both the House and the Senate legislation in terms of comprehensive coverage , in terms of lack of out-of-pocket payments , copays , deductibles , coinsurance , et cetera , in terms of the freedom to access care , and in terms of the continuity of coverage .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country that can can match that level of benefits .
So I think that that ’ s kind of a false equivalence .
I think because we call it Medicare for All , there might be a tendency to compare what the proposals are in the current legislation to the actually existing Medicare system , which has been severely compromised for over 50 years of cuts and attacks and reductions in payments .
But this would be an expanded and an improved version of the current Medicare system and would in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are currently on Medicare .
Greg Wilpert : I think that ’ s a very important point because by calling it “ Medicare for All , ” people always think of the usual Medicare .
It used to be called single payer , actually , which perhaps would have been not necessarily clear , but at least it wouldn ’ t confuse the issue .
But let me move to another issue .
Even the AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten have both expressed a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though both the AFL-CIO and the AFT have officially endorsed single payer .
Now , if unions actually gain from Medicare for All , like you say , either because of their bargaining power and also because the plans themselves might be better or would be better , why are so many union leaders lukewarm towards it ?
Mark Dudzic : Well , maybe you should ask them .
I mean , I think that both of the organizations you mentioned have passed a number of resolutions that put them on record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re not doing a very good job representing their own organizations ’ positions .
I think that there ’ s kind of two broad areas , I think , that might impact how union leaders feel about this .
The first is perhaps a reluctance to get ahead of their members , that there ’ s a perception that the union members themselves don ’ t support Medicare for All and are afraid to give up their benefits .
I think to some degree , what happened last weekend in Las @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that , in fact , union members are often in advance of their leaders on understanding how Medicare for All would provide a vastly improved sense of security in their life and in the lives of their friends , neighbors , and family members .
I think union members see that they ’ re more than just employees of a unionized operation , that they ’ re part of a working class that would vastly benefit from Medicare for All .
So I think that that argument has begun to dissipate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period .
And then the other argument or the other pull on national union leaders , I think , is a concern not to disrupt their political relationships with various groups within the Democratic establishment .
And I think that that , again , will be addressed by the dynamics of this political campaign .
Greg Wilpert : So this brings me actually to my next question , which is that the US historically has actually considered a single payer bill back in 1946 , at a time when union power was arguably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So my question is , first of all , why did it fail back then ?
And how could it pass now when union power is actually at one of its lowest points in terms of strength in US history , and not only that , is , as you mentioned , quite intertwined with , for lack of a better word , with the establishment ?
Mark Dudzic : I think that the short answer to the 1946 failure , and I wasn ’ t around then , but … is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the industrialized world , capital emerged from World War II in a very strengthened position and went on the offensive in 1945 and ’ 46 .
And one of the first things they killed was the initiative that Roosevelt had promised when he was reelected in ’ 44 to make healthcare a right in this country , and they had moved on to put handcuffs on labor with the Taft-Hartley bill , and using anti-communism and all the other tools at their disposal to begin to weaken the labor movement .
So that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what happened here .
But labor was strong enough to negotiate a second-best solution and negotiate healthcare , make healthcare a benefit rather than a right , and that worked pretty well right up into the 1970s for a lot of people , not for everyone .
It created a number of disparities around race and gender within the working class in terms of access to healthcare .
But beginning in the 1970s with the rise of neo-liberalism and globalization , deindustrialization , we began to experience a massive crisis in employment-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now for almost half a century for working people .
So I would say that it ’ s this half-century ’ s experience with the demise of employment-based healthcare , which has opened up the new possibilities to win it .
There ’ s been a huge paradigm shift in how people perceive Medicare for All .
I think that that ’ s based on their life experience of most working-class families .
Everybody knows they ’ re one major illness away from economic disaster .
They understand how precarious it is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your healthcare .
Your kid ages out , she loses her healthcare .
You go on strike , you lose your healthcare .
People are ready for more , and they ’ re fed up with the status quo .
And so that ’ s what ’ s really driving this .
Greg Wilpert : And as a campaigner for single payer , what would you say is the most important strategy to pursue in trying to make sure that this happens ?
Mark Dudzic : I think we need to go very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union organizer , and I think that this is kind of one of those moments like early on in an organizing drive , right before the boss finds out about the union .
We have massive economic power and political power arrayed against us , and now is the time to really sit down and have the kind of kitchen table conversations with our coworkers and our neighbors about the … to anticipate the attacks that will be levied against us and the lies and the disunity and the threats and the scaremongering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon us as this campaign gains momentum .
So I think now is the time to really go deep and challenge people to really understand this issue and to begin to take action in their own communities and their own workplaces to really reinforce and move this , their support for this issue .
Greg Wilpert : Okay , well , of course we continue to follow and to cover the issue , but we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
I was speaking to Mark Dudzic , National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Payer .
Thanks again , Mark , for having joined us today .
Mark Dudzic : Greg , wonderful to be here .
Thanks .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .

Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.As Bernie Sanders surges ahead in the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, many of the attacks against him have honed in on how his Medicare for All plan would supposedly hurt unionized workers who have good health insurance. During the ninth Democratic debate in Nevada last week, moderator Chuck Todd summarized the issue as follows.Chuck Todd: I’m going to stay on this topic, on this issue with the Culinary Union. Obviously, their leaders are warning their members about … that your healthcare plan will take away their healthcare plan, take away private insurance completely. There are some Democrats who like you a lot but worry that this plan, Medicare for All, is going to take away private insurance and that it goes too far. Are they right?Greg Wilpert: Chuck Todd was referring to the Nevada Culinary Workers Union, which had criticized Sanders’ Medicare for All plan and which several other candidates used as an opportunity to attack Sanders as being anti-union. But what’s behind this? Why are unions such as the Nevada Culinary Workers opposed to or lukewarm in their support for Medicare for All? And would Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal really be a problem for workers with good employer-provided health insurance plans?Joining me to explore this issue is Mark Dudzic. He is the National Coordinator with the Labor Campaign for Single Payer. Also, he is the author of an article published in the journal of New Politics titled Take My Benefits—Please!, which explores how unions would benefit from Medicare for All and why so many of them remain reluctant to endorse the plan. Thanks for joining us today, Mark.Mark Dudzic: Great to be with you.Greg Wilpert: Let’s start with a relatively common argument, which Joe Biden, Peter Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Mike Bloomberg also raised during the Nevada debate, that Medicare for All, by eliminating private health insurance plans, would get rid of hard-fought union benefits and would thus hurt unions and workers. What’s your reaction to that argument?
Mark Dudzic: Yeah, well, I think first of all that that is now actually a minority view within the organized labor movement, that there’s been a real sea change in perceptions about employment-based healthcare, and it’s a growing consensus that it turned out not to be a very good idea to link healthcare to employment. And we’re dealing with a, basically, an unsustainable system here. We have to bargain more and more money every contract, we have to sacrifice wages and other benefits in order to maintain payment into the world’s most expensive and inefficient healthcare system, and it’s not working for us. It’s causing strikes, lockouts, concession bargaining. It’s driving wage stagnation for both union and non-union workers. And we need to transition into a Medicare for All solution in order to take healthcare off the bargaining table and strengthen our bargaining power both as individual workers and as unions.
Greg Wilpert: Now, one of the arguments or concerns that are often raised in connection with how Medicare for All would affect the employer-provided health insurance that unions managed to get is that that it might not be as good as those plans, the existing private plans. What’s your response to that concern?
Mark Dudzic: Look, I would challenge anybody to show me a union plan that is as good as the level of benefits proposed in both the House and the Senate legislation in terms of comprehensive coverage, in terms of lack of out-of-pocket payments, copays, deductibles, coinsurance, et cetera, in terms of the freedom to access care, and in terms of the continuity of coverage. There’s not a single union plan in the country that can can match that level of benefits.
So I think that that’s kind of a false equivalence. I think because we call it Medicare for All, there might be a tendency to compare what the proposals are in the current legislation to the actually existing Medicare system, which has been severely compromised for over 50 years of cuts and attacks and reductions in payments. But this would be an expanded and an improved version of the current Medicare system and would in fact vastly improve Medicare for senior citizens who are currently on Medicare.
Greg Wilpert: I think that’s a very important point because by calling it “Medicare for All,” people always think of the usual Medicare. It used to be called single payer, actually, which perhaps would have been not necessarily clear, but at least it wouldn’t confuse the issue. But let me move to another issue.
Even the AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten have both expressed a bit of skepticism towards Medicare for All, even though both the AFL-CIO and the AFT have officially endorsed single payer. Now, if unions actually gain from Medicare for All, like you say, either because of their bargaining power and also because the plans themselves might be better or would be better, why are so many union leaders lukewarm towards it?
Mark Dudzic: Well, maybe you should ask them. I mean, I think that both of the organizations you mentioned have passed a number of resolutions that put them on record as supporting Medicare for All, so they’re not doing a very good job representing their own organizations’ positions. I think that there’s kind of two broad areas, I think, that might impact how union leaders feel about this.
The first is perhaps a reluctance to get ahead of their members, that there’s a perception that the union members themselves don’t support Medicare for All and are afraid to give up their benefits. I think to some degree, what happened last weekend in Las Vegas has disabused us of that notion, that, in fact, union members are often in advance of their leaders on understanding how Medicare for All would provide a vastly improved sense of security in their life and in the lives of their friends, neighbors, and family members. I think union members see that they’re more than just employees of a unionized operation, that they’re part of a working class that would vastly benefit from Medicare for All. So I think that that argument has begun to dissipate and will over the course of this election period.
And then the other argument or the other pull on national union leaders, I think, is a concern not to disrupt their political relationships with various groups within the Democratic establishment. And I think that that, again, will be addressed by the dynamics of this political campaign.
Greg Wilpert: So this brings me actually to my next question, which is that the US historically has actually considered a single payer bill back in 1946, at a time when union power was arguably at one of its strongest moments. So my question is, first of all, why did it fail back then? And how could it pass now when union power is actually at one of its lowest points in terms of strength in US history, and not only that, is, as you mentioned, quite intertwined with, for lack of a better word, with the establishment?
Mark Dudzic: I think that the short answer to the 1946 failure, and I wasn’t around then, but … is that in the US, unlike most of the industrialized world, capital emerged from World War II in a very strengthened position and went on the offensive in 1945 and ’46. And one of the first things they killed was the initiative that Roosevelt had promised when he was reelected in ’44 to make healthcare a right in this country, and they had moved on to put handcuffs on labor with the Taft-Hartley bill, and using anti-communism and all the other tools at their disposal to begin to weaken the labor movement. So that’s sort of the short story of what happened here.
But labor was strong enough to negotiate a second-best solution and negotiate healthcare, make healthcare a benefit rather than a right, and that worked pretty well right up into the 1970s for a lot of people, not for everyone. It created a number of disparities around race and gender within the working class in terms of access to healthcare. But beginning in the 1970s with the rise of neo-liberalism and globalization, deindustrialization, we began to experience a massive crisis in employment-based healthcare that’s just been unfolding now for almost half a century for working people.
So I would say that it’s this half-century’s experience with the demise of employment-based healthcare, which has opened up the new possibilities to win it. There’s been a huge paradigm shift in how people perceive Medicare for All. I think that that’s based on their life experience of most working-class families. Everybody knows they’re one major illness away from economic disaster. They understand how precarious it is. You lose your job, you lose your healthcare. Your kid ages out, she loses her healthcare. You go on strike, you lose your healthcare. People are ready for more, and they’re fed up with the status quo. And so that’s what’s really driving this.
Greg Wilpert: And as a campaigner for single payer, what would you say is the most important strategy to pursue in trying to make sure that this happens?
Mark Dudzic: I think we need to go very deep. I’m an old union organizer, and I think that this is kind of one of those moments like early on in an organizing drive, right before the boss finds out about the union. We have massive economic power and political power arrayed against us, and now is the time to really sit down and have the kind of kitchen table conversations with our coworkers and our neighbors about the … to anticipate the attacks that will be levied against us and the lies and the disunity and the threats and the scaremongering that’s going to be unleashed upon us as this campaign gains momentum. So I think now is the time to really go deep and challenge people to really understand this issue and to begin to take action in their own communities and their own workplaces to really reinforce and move this, their support for this issue.
Greg Wilpert: Okay, well, of course we continue to follow and to cover the issue, but we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator for the Labor Campaign For Single Payer. Thanks again, Mark, for having joined us today.
Mark Dudzic: Greg, wonderful to be here. Thanks.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.