democracynow--2020-01-16--Tanks & AR-15s: Moms 4 Housing Speaks Out After Militarized Eviction from Vacant Oakland House

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : We turn now to Oakland , California , where a group of unhoused mothers were evicted Tuesday from a vacant house they had been occupying for two months .
Facing homelessness and skyrocketing rents , the working mothers moved into the house on 2928 Magnolia Street in November and stayed despite an eviction notice from real estate developer Wedgewood Properties .
Their movement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and became a rallying cry against rampant income inequality and homelessness in the Bay Area and across the U.S. AMY GOODMAN : On Tuesday , as one of the mothers , Dominique Walker , joined us live on Democracy Now !
from a studio in Berkeley , sheriff ’ s deputies carried out a pre-dawn , militarized raid aimed at evicting the moms , just after 5 a.m. Tuesday morning .
Dominique pulled the earpiece out of her ear , and they left the studio .
It was Tuesday morning about just around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed deputies , including a tactical team , descended on the house on Magnolia Street , broke down the door with a battering ram , sent a robot into the house , allegedly to search for possible “ threats.
” The deputies then arrested two mothers who were living in the house , as well as two of their supporters .
All four were released on bail Tuesday afternoon .
Well , for more , we go back to Berkeley , California , where we ’ re joined now by another of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Moms 4 Housing who was arrested on Tuesday , and her 12-year-old daughter Destiny Johnson .
Also with us , Carroll Fife , who was joining us as the battering ram was going into the house .
She ’ s the director of the Oakland office for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment , organizer , educator , mother and 20-year-plus resident of Oakland .
We welcome you all to Democracy Now !
Misty , if you can start off by talking about what happened two mornings ago ?
MISTY CROSS : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie scene .
I had never seen anything like that live in my life .
Two , we never had gotten sleep that night , because we knew that the sheriffs had 24 hours to serve the eviction .
So , while we stayed up and watched and waited for them to come in , they came , and it was something like they had knew that Dominique wasn ’ t going to be at the home , so they waited ’ til they got good on air , and started to proceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to the door , ramming as hard as they were , in all the tactical gear , as we watched the window , with AR-15s and these tanks and fire departments and ambulances out there , like it was a real terrorist threat , like we were armed and we were dangerous .
As I recall , we ’ ve always said that everything has been a nonviolent civil disobedient act .
We haven ’ t disrespected anyone , nor have we caused harm to anyone .
So , it was really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , really , on how many armed forces were outside at that time .
MISTY CROSS : Once the sheriffs actually made their way through the door to get in a little bit , they sent in a robot that came in to roam around the home to see if there was any explosives or weapons of some form .
I later found out that the tank that they had outside was a detection on it that can shoot people and detect weapons on site , just by like a metal detector .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had some form of weapon on them .
I just still am like traumatized from it .
I have been a victim of violent crime myself before , shot multiple times with an AK-47 .
So , to come out and see these men holding these guns , for women and children , was really — it was a scary moment .
And it took me back .
AMY GOODMAN : Speaking of children , your daughter Destiny is sitting right next to you .
Destiny , can you talk about how you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , how I felt ?
It was like — as my mom said , it was scary .
And all I wanted to know is that she ’ s going to be safe and what was the next step .
And I was kind of puzzled , because I saw how heavy they came .
And I was wondering like why .
And I was imagining if I was there and if I was upstairs and just seeing them come in and like having guns drawed and if it was drawed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be like that might cause trauma .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Carroll Fife , can you talk about how you understand the extraordinarily militarized response ?
I mean , tanks and guns and tactical gear ?
CARROLL FIFE : I can ’ t understand it .
I don ’ t understand it .
There was some indicator that the sheriffs would use some type of force .
It was alluded to in several press statements that were made by the Alameda County sheriffs , which is what prompted the moms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their attorneys , that this is nonviolent civil disobedience .
But the sheriff said early on that the mothers would determine the level of force that they used .
And so , we ’ re thinking there ’ s no reason to use any level of force for a nonviolent civil disobedience action .
Yet they came in a way that I ’ ve never seen in real life , let alone in a residential small community for unarmed civilians .
This is the most obscene use at taxpayer dollars that I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : I want to go back to the Mother Jones piece that we quoted the other day .
“ In Oakland , where buyers routinely offer hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking prices , there are nearly four vacant properties for every homeless person .
It ’ s not so much an issue of scarcity , but of distribution.
” Carroll , you were in the studio , as well , when the two of you hightailed it out of there to get back to the house as the battering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain the owner of this house , how it was the house was vacant for two years , and the significance of what ’ s happening in Oakland — and , of course , larger than that ?
CARROLL FIFE : This one home , particularly in the state that it ’ s in , represents very little to the owner of this property .
And Wedgewood Properties , which has 96 subsidiaries all over the United States , operational in 18 states , is a very , very wealthy organization .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not thousands , of other homes that lie vacant , able to be used by Oakland residents .
If there are four empty homes for every one unsheltered person , you know , the city could potentially purchase those , put them in a land trust and house everyone and get people off the streets tonight , if that was the goal .
But because we have a market , a housing market , that is highly speculative , and we are selling homes to the highest bidder , we have the outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is some of the highest levels of poverty and homelessness in the state of California .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Misty Cross , can you talk about what you think the local response from the leadership has been , including , especially , Mayor Libby Schaaf ?
MISTY CROSS : Libby Schaaf , the mayor of Oakland , has not acknowledged Moms 4 Housing .
The first time she mentioned out of her mouth of Moms 4 Housing was on the news , 7 a.m. , before her press conference at 10 a.m. of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
When that news aired , it showed guns , break-ins .
There was some operation that was going on that she was hosting to where they were going to look for criminals .
And in the midst of her having that shown , she says that anyone breaking the law will have to pay a price .
And then she showed the clip of homelessness and her concern about that .
And it was mentioned : How did she feel about Moms 4 Housing , and was she in support ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
She said that she understood the civil disobedience part of the movement , but never said once that she understood .
Once — AMY GOODMAN : We just — we just have 20 seconds .
Where are you now , Misty and Destiny ?
Where are you staying , now that you ’ ve been evicted ?
MISTY CROSS : We ’ re staying at a shelter .
We ’ re staying at a shelter .
We are still trying to think of our next solutions onto our housing situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Again , it was never about trying to stay in that house .
The message we were trying to send out was to get people aware of policies and things that are in place that are making us not move forward in life , and having housing as a human right , which is something that every human should have , period .
AMY GOODMAN : We have to break here , but we ’ re going to do Part 2 , and we ’ re going to post it online at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thank you so much for being with us , and Carroll Fife , director of the Oakland office of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment .
Thank you to Moms 4 Housing .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to Oakland, California, where a group of unhoused mothers were evicted Tuesday from a vacant house they had been occupying for two months. Facing homelessness and skyrocketing rents, the working mothers moved into the house on 2928 Magnolia Street in November and stayed despite an eviction notice from real estate developer Wedgewood Properties. Their movement, Moms 4 Housing, gained international attention and became a rallying cry against rampant income inequality and homelessness in the Bay Area and across the U.S.
AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday, as one of the mothers, Dominique Walker, joined us live on Democracy Now! from a studio in Berkeley, sheriff’s deputies carried out a pre-dawn, militarized raid aimed at evicting the moms, just after 5 a.m. Tuesday morning. Dominique pulled the earpiece out of her ear, and they left the studio. It was Tuesday morning about just around 6 a.m. California time. Dozens of armed deputies, including a tactical team, descended on the house on Magnolia Street, broke down the door with a battering ram, sent a robot into the house, allegedly to search for possible “threats.” The deputies then arrested two mothers who were living in the house, as well as two of their supporters. All four were released on bail Tuesday afternoon.
Well, for more, we go back to Berkeley, California, where we’re joined now by another of the mothers, Misty Cross, a member of Moms 4 Housing who was arrested on Tuesday, and her 12-year-old daughter Destiny Johnson. Also with us, Carroll Fife, who was joining us as the battering ram was going into the house. She’s the director of the Oakland office for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, organizer, educator, mother and 20-year-plus resident of Oakland.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Misty, if you can start off by talking about what happened two mornings ago?
MISTY CROSS: Tuesday morning, it was like a movie scene. I had never seen anything like that live in my life. Two, we never had gotten sleep that night, because we knew that the sheriffs had 24 hours to serve the eviction. So, while we stayed up and watched and waited for them to come in, they came, and it was something like they had knew that Dominique wasn’t going to be at the home, so they waited ’til they got good on air, and started to proceed to do the eviction.
When they came to the door, ramming as hard as they were, in all the tactical gear, as we watched the window, with AR-15s and these tanks and fire departments and ambulances out there, like it was a real terrorist threat, like we were armed and we were dangerous. As I recall, we’ve always said that everything has been a nonviolent civil disobedient act. We haven’t disrespected anyone, nor have we caused harm to anyone. So, it was really shocking, and we were just puzzled, really, on how many armed forces were outside at that time.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s —
MISTY CROSS: Once the sheriff —
AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead, Misty.
MISTY CROSS: Once the sheriffs actually made their way through the door to get in a little bit, they sent in a robot that came in to roam around the home to see if there was any explosives or weapons of some form. I later found out that the tank that they had outside was a detection on it that can shoot people and detect weapons on site, just by like a metal detector. So it would shoot at anything that had some form of weapon on them. I just still am like traumatized from it. I have been a victim of violent crime myself before, shot multiple times with an AK-47. So, to come out and see these men holding these guns, for women and children, was really — it was a scary moment. And it took me back.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of children, your daughter Destiny is sitting right next to you. Destiny, can you talk about how you felt on Tuesday morning?
DESTINY JOHNSON: Well, how I felt? It was like — as my mom said, it was scary. And all I wanted to know is that she’s going to be safe and what was the next step. And I was kind of puzzled, because I saw how heavy they came. And I was wondering like why. And I was imagining if I was there and if I was upstairs and just seeing them come in and like having guns drawed and if it was drawed at me and the other kids, it will be like that might cause trauma.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Carroll Fife, can you talk about how you understand the extraordinarily militarized response? I mean, tanks and guns and tactical gear?
CARROLL FIFE: I can’t understand it. I don’t understand it. There was some indicator that the sheriffs would use some type of force. It was alluded to in several press statements that were made by the Alameda County sheriffs, which is what prompted the moms to continuously repeat, as well as their attorneys, that this is nonviolent civil disobedience. But the sheriff said early on that the mothers would determine the level of force that they used. And so, we’re thinking there’s no reason to use any level of force for a nonviolent civil disobedience action. Yet they came in a way that I’ve never seen in real life, let alone in a residential small community for unarmed civilians. This is the most obscene use at taxpayer dollars that I’ve seen in a long time.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to the Mother Jones piece that we quoted the other day. “In Oakland, where buyers routinely offer hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking prices, there are nearly four vacant properties for every homeless person. It’s not so much an issue of scarcity, but of distribution.”
Carroll, you were in the studio, as well, when the two of you hightailed it out of there to get back to the house as the battering ram was moving in. Can you explain the owner of this house, how it was the house was vacant for two years, and the significance of what’s happening in Oakland — and, of course, larger than that?
CARROLL FIFE: This one home, particularly in the state that it’s in, represents very little to the owner of this property. And Wedgewood Properties, which has 96 subsidiaries all over the United States, operational in 18 states, is a very, very wealthy organization. So, this home represents hundreds, if not thousands, of other homes that lie vacant, able to be used by Oakland residents. If there are four empty homes for every one unsheltered person, you know, the city could potentially purchase those, put them in a land trust and house everyone and get people off the streets tonight, if that was the goal. But because we have a market, a housing market, that is highly speculative, and we are selling homes to the highest bidder, we have the outcomes, which are not coincidental, which is some of the highest levels of poverty and homelessness in the state of California.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Misty Cross, can you talk about what you think the local response from the leadership has been, including, especially, Mayor Libby Schaaf?
MISTY CROSS: Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, has not acknowledged Moms 4 Housing. The first time she mentioned out of her mouth of Moms 4 Housing was on the news, 7 a.m., before her press conference at 10 a.m. of her introduction of the S.B. 50 bill. When that news aired, it showed guns, break-ins. There was some operation that was going on that she was hosting to where they were going to look for criminals. And in the midst of her having that shown, she says that anyone breaking the law will have to pay a price. And then she showed the clip of homelessness and her concern about that. And it was mentioned: How did she feel about Moms 4 Housing, and was she in support? She never said that she was in support. She said that she understood the civil disobedience part of the movement, but never said once that she understood. Once —
AMY GOODMAN: We just — we just have 20 seconds. Where are you now, Misty and Destiny? Where are you staying, now that you’ve been evicted?
MISTY CROSS: We’re staying at a shelter. We’re staying at a shelter. We are still trying to think of our next solutions onto our housing situation, but all of that is moving forward. Again, it was never about trying to stay in that house. The message we were trying to send out was to get people aware of policies and things that are in place that are making us not move forward in life, and having housing as a human right, which is something that every human should have, period.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break here, but we’re going to do Part 2, and we’re going to post it online at Democracy Now! Misty Cross and Destiny, thank you so much for being with us, and Carroll Fife, director of the Oakland office of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. Thank you to Moms 4 Housing. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.


democracynow--2020-01-16--We Can't Be Silent Anymore: Rev. Barber & Poor People's Campaign Push Presidential Debate on Poverty

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : We turn now to look at endemic poverty in the United States .
As the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses took place Tuesday night in Des Moines , Iowa , more than a hundred protesters marched to the debate venue at Drake University to demand a televised presidential debate on poverty .
Led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Barber and Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis , demonstrators carried a coffin to honor the 250,000 people who die every year from the impacts of poverty .
This is registered nurse Mary Jane Shanklin .
AMY GOODMAN : According to the Poor People ’ s Campaign , 140 million Americans — over 43 % of the population — can ’ t pay basic living expenses .
In Iowa , 630,000 workers — 45 % of the state ’ s workforce — make less than $ 15 an hour .
Well , for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barber .
He is in Iowa right now .
Last night , he and the Poor People ’ s Campaign hosted a mass meeting on poverty in Des Moines .
The night before , they were right there at the protest at the debate , outside , marching in the cold , in the snow .
Reverend Dr. William Barber , you are calling for a televised national presidential candidate debate on poverty .
Talk about what you want to see .
And what kind of response are you getting to it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you so much , Amy .
We can not enliven the electorate as long as we keep having dead silence on poverty , when 43 % of this nation is living in poverty and low wealth .
And we ’ ve had nearly 30 debates since 2016 alone , and not one of them have focused on poverty , an issue that , as you just said , is affecting 140 million people .
There is not a county in this country where a person can work a minimum-wage job and afford a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dying every day from poverty .
Seven people died from vaping , and we called it a national emergency .
We are seeing , in Iowa alone , more than 1.1 million people living in poverty .
The majority of them , over 600,000 , are white , in Iowa , 100,000 people without health insurance .
These are not hyperboles .
This is factual .
It ’ s empirical .
And we can not continue to have debates and conversations that just deal with the middle class and the poor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when people came together , and a thousand people , and nine presidential candidates all said they would fight for a full debate televised on poverty .
Hasn ’ t happened yet .
Republicans tend to racialize poverty .
Democrats tend to run from poverty .
We must deal with the reality of poverty .
We can talk about everything else , but we have to deal with the reality of poverty .
And we not only want a debate ; we have put forward a moral poverty justice budget .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We know how to find the money .
We know what happens if we invest in living wages , in healthcare , in education .
And we know that we can challenge the fact that we spend 53 cents of every discretionary dollar on defense and less than 15 cents of every discretionary dollar on healthcare and education and things that would uplift society .
Which is why , lastly , Amy , we are on a tour called the “ We Must Do M.O.R.E.
” — mobilizing , organizing , registering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we ’ re going to have , on June 20th , 2020 , a Mass Poor People ’ s Assembly and Moral March on Washington .
Thousands of people are coming , poor and impacted people , more leaders , right after the primaries , just before the convention , because we must change the moral narrative in this nation and deal with this issue that is affecting 43 % — almost 50 % — of this nation ’ s population .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , Reverend Dr. Barber , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 250,000 people die from the impacts of poverty every year in the United States , which is , of course , the richest country in the world .
So I ’ d like to go back to the 2020 Democratic presidential debate , when Pete Buttigieg said — he was one of the only — one of only two candidates who mentioned the Poor People ’ s Campaign directly .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : So , Reverend Barber , that ’ s Pete Buttigieg .
Your response to the way in which poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Tuesday night ’ s debate ?
REV .
WILLIAM BARBER II : Well , we , first of all , thank the mayor for saying that very clearly .
Tom Steyer also said it .
But we are disappointed that the other candidates , who have promised that they would do this , haven ’ t said it .
We ’ re disappointed at media , mainline media .
We ’ re talking about 43 % of this nation .
We ’ re not talking about , you know , just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 38 million children , 66 million white people , 26 million African Americans .
This is serious business .
Thirty million people without healthcare .
We ’ re talking about people who are dying because of government policies , not because God has called them home .
And what we are saying is you can ’ t just have a question about poverty or say you ’ re going to address one area .
You have to look at the interlocking injustices , systemic racism like voter suppression and mistreatment of immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic poverty and ecological devastation , the war economy and militarism , and this false moral narrative of religious nationalism that suggests that — that tries to moralize poverty and say , well , if people would just do better , live better , and churches and mosques and synagogues can take care of the issue .
No , this is a moral — American moral crisis .
And so , how is it that we are not discussing this issue and demanding that ?
We have put together , as I said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done an audit of America .
We need a full conversation , not just one .
We ’ re saying we ought to have at least one .
We ’ re putting together an omnibus bill to put before the Congress .
And last night , one of the reporters asked us — night before last — “ Well , how long would it take to fix this ?
” Well , it didn ’ t take long to give $ 2 trillion of tax cuts to the wealthy .
It doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out companies where the leadership failed because of their own corruption .
But when it comes to the poor , suddenly we want to slow down .
On the other night , we had a white farmer from Kansas talk about how farmers are still having to purify their own water .
We had a poor Navy veteran who ’ s a trans sister now , Sophia , kicked out of the Navy , living in poverty .
We had people who work for less than living wages , who live in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a travesty in America .
And that ’ s why we ’ re not going to be silent anymore .
That ’ s why people are rising up .
And we also have one other thing that we ’ re putting before these candidates .
Poor and low-wealth people hold a political calculus in this country .
They can change it .
For instance , in Iowa , Trump only won by 150,000 votes , but there are 1.1 million poor and low-wealth people in this country .
A third of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A third of all white poor people live in the South .
If poor and low-wealth people of every race , creed and color connect together , as Dr. King said in 1965 , that ’ s the great fear of the aristocracy and the Bourbon class — poor and low-wealth people forming unions together that can transform the political calculus .
And we know that is possible .
That ’ s why we ’ re not just marching and asking .
We are registering people for the movement who vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ now have 43 states , 43 coordinating committees across this country that are organizing people , that are registering people for the movement who vote .
We tend to connect at least 1.2 million people , 30,000 per state .
And in many states , like in North Carolina , for instance , the electorate for our governor turned on just 10,000 votes .
We know the counties where if we can just have 2 to 3 % of the poor and low-wealth people organizing , politicizing around an agenda , they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
We are serious about poor and low-wealth people recognizing their power and changing the narrative in this country and refusing to be ignored .
So we are thankful for a mention , but we ’ ve got to go further , much further , than a mention .
And I ask this question : How is it that we have less voting rights today than we had in 1965 , and we haven ’ t had a full debate on how that impacts poverty and people who get in place , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they pass policies that hurt the poor and working people ?
How is it that we ’ ve not dealt with this issue ?
We can ’ t be silent anymore .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , we ’ re talking about this in the period between Dr. King ’ s birthday — he would have turned 91 yesterday — AMY GOODMAN : — and the federal holiday , that is Monday , which goes to a second point , Reverend Barber , and we just have a minute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s happening in Virginia .
The governor has just declared a temporary state of emergency there ahead of a gun rights rally that was called for the state Capitol of Richmond for Monday , Martin Luther King Day .
Virginia Governor Northam said authorities believe , quote , “ armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol , ” unquote .
As part of the state of emergency , Virginia has temporarily banned individuals from carrying firearms on Capitol grounds .
Can you talk about who ’ s behind this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
REV .
WILLIAM BARBER II : Well , when you look at these militia groups , when you look at what ’ s happening across the country , you look at what the NRA has done and how it has sown into the national consciousness this need for guns and this need for violence , you look at the violence of our president , you look at how when people were in Charlottesville he said there were good people on both sides when we had the riot in Charlottesville , what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And a lot of times what also is stirring up the people in that particular genre is many of them are hurting , and they ’ ve been taught to blame everybody else for their problem .
You know , many of them are poor and hurting , and they think somebody is taking something away from them .
And it ’ s so sad , because what should be shown to them is , actually , instead of storming the Capitol , we should be joining and building coalitions among poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot box .
That ’ s what really should be happening .
But people have gotten convinced in their mind that the gun is going to save them .
What they really need is food and healthcare and living-wage jobs .
But we see — again , Dr. King , in '65 , said to us that every time there 's this possibility for unity among poor folk , we see a rising of division and violence that is deliberately sown into the public consciousness as a way of dividing people and keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about this nation in violence right now .
But I will tell you that , as Coretta Scott King said , violence is not just guns .
Violence is ghetto housing .
Violence is poverty .
Violence is a lack of healthcare .
Violence is the lack of living-wage jobs .
And violence is an apathetic attitude that refuses to address these other issues .
And right now we have a lot of violent public policy that ’ s happening at the same time we see these attitudes and mentalities of violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s very serious , and we better address it as a nation and bring people together .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Reverend Dr. William Barber , we thank you so much for being with us , co-chair of the Poor People ’ s Campaign , carrying the torch from Dr. Martin Luther King .
On Monday , Democracy Now !
will bring a special playing the speeches of Dr. King .
When we come back , we continue to talk about poverty , in the form of homelessness in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just evicted from a home they were occupying that had been vacant for two years .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to look at endemic poverty in the United States. As the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses took place Tuesday night in Des Moines, Iowa, more than a hundred protesters marched to the debate venue at Drake University to demand a televised presidential debate on poverty. Led by longtime civil rights leader Reverend Dr. William Barber and Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, demonstrators carried a coffin to honor the 250,000 people who die every year from the impacts of poverty. This is registered nurse Mary Jane Shanklin.
MARY JANE SHANKLIN: The Poor People’s Campaign demands that the presidential candidates have a public debate on poverty. We want poverty and the systemic attack on poor people to be acknowledged. And we demand to hear concrete plans on how they are going to lift all Americans out of poverty.
AMY GOODMAN: According to the Poor People’s Campaign, 140 million Americans — over 43% of the population — can’t pay basic living expenses. In Iowa, 630,000 workers — 45% of the state’s workforce — make less than $15 an hour.
Well, for more, we go to Reverend Dr. William Barber. He is in Iowa right now. Last night, he and the Poor People’s Campaign hosted a mass meeting on poverty in Des Moines. The night before, they were right there at the protest at the debate, outside, marching in the cold, in the snow.
Reverend Dr. William Barber, you are calling for a televised national presidential candidate debate on poverty. Talk about what you want to see. And what kind of response are you getting to it?
REV. WILLIAM BARBER II: Thank you so much, Amy. We cannot enliven the electorate as long as we keep having dead silence on poverty, when 43% of this nation is living in poverty and low wealth. And we’ve had nearly 30 debates since 2016 alone, and not one of them have focused on poverty, an issue that, as you just said, is affecting 140 million people.
There is not a county in this country where a person can work a minimum-wage job and afford a basic two-bedroom apartment. Six hundred people are dying every day from poverty. Seven people died from vaping, and we called it a national emergency. We are seeing, in Iowa alone, more than 1.1 million people living in poverty. The majority of them, over 600,000, are white, in Iowa, 100,000 people without health insurance. These are not hyperboles. This is factual. It’s empirical.
And we cannot continue to have debates and conversations that just deal with the middle class and the poor. Last summer, we had a congress, when people came together, and a thousand people, and nine presidential candidates all said they would fight for a full debate televised on poverty. Hasn’t happened yet. Republicans tend to racialize poverty. Democrats tend to run from poverty. We must deal with the reality of poverty. We can talk about everything else, but we have to deal with the reality of poverty.
And we not only want a debate; we have put forward a moral poverty justice budget. There’s no scarcity of money. We know how to find the money. We know what happens if we invest in living wages, in healthcare, in education. And we know that we can challenge the fact that we spend 53 cents of every discretionary dollar on defense and less than 15 cents of every discretionary dollar on healthcare and education and things that would uplift society.
Which is why, lastly, Amy, we are on a tour called the “We Must Do M.O.R.E.” — mobilizing, organizing, registering, educating people for the movement who vote. And we’re going to have, on June 20th, 2020, a Mass Poor People’s Assembly and Moral March on Washington. Thousands of people are coming, poor and impacted people, more leaders, right after the primaries, just before the convention, because we must change the moral narrative in this nation and deal with this issue that is affecting 43% — almost 50% — of this nation’s population.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Reverend Dr. Barber, I mean, those are remarkable figures: 250,000 people die from the impacts of poverty every year in the United States, which is, of course, the richest country in the world. So I’d like to go back to the 2020 Democratic presidential debate, when Pete Buttigieg said — he was one of the only — one of only two candidates who mentioned the Poor People’s Campaign directly.
PETE BUTTIGIEG: Something that hasn’t come up very much tonight but deserves a lot of attention: poverty. You know, the Poor People’s Campaign is marching on Iowa right now, calling on us to talk about this issue more. They are driven by their faith, I think, because even though in politics we’re supposed to talk middle class, they know there’s no scripture that says, “As you’ve done unto the middle class, so you’ve done unto me.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Reverend Barber, that’s Pete Buttigieg. Your response to the way in which poverty was discussed — or not discussed — at Tuesday night’s debate?
REV. WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, we, first of all, thank the mayor for saying that very clearly. Tom Steyer also said it. But we are disappointed that the other candidates, who have promised that they would do this, haven’t said it. We’re disappointed at media, mainline media.
We’re talking about 43% of this nation. We’re not talking about, you know, just a few people. We’re talking about 38 million children, 66 million white people, 26 million African Americans. This is serious business. Thirty million people without healthcare. We’re talking about people who are dying because of government policies, not because God has called them home.
And what we are saying is you can’t just have a question about poverty or say you’re going to address one area. You have to look at the interlocking injustices, systemic racism like voter suppression and mistreatment of immigrants, mistreatment of Native people, and systemic poverty and ecological devastation, the war economy and militarism, and this false moral narrative of religious nationalism that suggests that — that tries to moralize poverty and say, well, if people would just do better, live better, and churches and mosques and synagogues can take care of the issue. No, this is a moral — American moral crisis. And so, how is it that we are not discussing this issue and demanding that?
We have put together, as I said, a budget. We’ve done an audit of America. We need a full conversation, not just one. We’re saying we ought to have at least one. We’re putting together an omnibus bill to put before the Congress. And last night, one of the reporters asked us — night before last — “Well, how long would it take to fix this?” Well, it didn’t take long to give $2 trillion of tax cuts to the wealthy. It doesn’t take long for us to bail out companies where the leadership failed because of their own corruption. But when it comes to the poor, suddenly we want to slow down.
On the other night, we had a white farmer from Kansas talk about how farmers are still having to purify their own water. We had a poor Navy veteran who’s a trans sister now, Sophia, kicked out of the Navy, living in poverty. We had people who work for less than living wages, who live in their cars and work every day. This is a travesty in America. And that’s why we’re not going to be silent anymore. That’s why people are rising up.
And we also have one other thing that we’re putting before these candidates. Poor and low-wealth people hold a political calculus in this country. They can change it. For instance, in Iowa, Trump only won by 150,000 votes, but there are 1.1 million poor and low-wealth people in this country. A third of all the poor people live in the South. A third of all white poor people live in the South. If poor and low-wealth people of every race, creed and color connect together, as Dr. King said in 1965, that’s the great fear of the aristocracy and the Bourbon class — poor and low-wealth people forming unions together that can transform the political calculus.
And we know that is possible. That’s why we’re not just marching and asking. We are registering people for the movement who vote. We intend to build power. We now have 43 states, 43 coordinating committees across this country that are organizing people, that are registering people for the movement who vote. We tend to connect at least 1.2 million people, 30,000 per state. And in many states, like in North Carolina, for instance, the electorate for our governor turned on just 10,000 votes. We know the counties where if we can just have 2 to 3% of the poor and low-wealth people organizing, politicizing around an agenda, they can fundamentally shift the political calculus in this country. We are serious about poor and low-wealth people recognizing their power and changing the narrative in this country and refusing to be ignored.
So we are thankful for a mention, but we’ve got to go further, much further, than a mention. And I ask this question: How is it that we have less voting rights today than we had in 1965, and we haven’t had a full debate on how that impacts poverty and people who get in place, and once they get in place politically, they pass policies that hurt the poor and working people? How is it that we’ve not dealt with this issue? We can’t be silent anymore.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, we’re talking about this in the period between Dr. King’s birthday — he would have turned 91 yesterday —
REV. WILLIAM BARBER II: That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: — and the federal holiday, that is Monday, which goes to a second point, Reverend Barber, and we just have a minute. I wanted to ask you about what’s happening in Virginia. The governor has just declared a temporary state of emergency there ahead of a gun rights rally that was called for the state Capitol of Richmond for Monday, Martin Luther King Day. Virginia Governor Northam said authorities believe, quote, “armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol,” unquote. As part of the state of emergency, Virginia has temporarily banned individuals from carrying firearms on Capitol grounds. Can you talk about who’s behind this, and the significance of this in Virginia?
REV. WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, when you look at these militia groups, when you look at what’s happening across the country, you look at what the NRA has done and how it has sown into the national consciousness this need for guns and this need for violence, you look at the violence of our president, you look at how when people were in Charlottesville he said there were good people on both sides when we had the riot in Charlottesville, what we are having is an intensification of violence. And a lot of times what also is stirring up the people in that particular genre is many of them are hurting, and they’ve been taught to blame everybody else for their problem. You know, many of them are poor and hurting, and they think somebody is taking something away from them.
And it’s so sad, because what should be shown to them is, actually, instead of storming the Capitol, we should be joining and building coalitions among poor whites and poor blacks and storming the ballot box. That’s what really should be happening. But people have gotten convinced in their mind that the gun is going to save them. What they really need is food and healthcare and living-wage jobs.
But we see — again, Dr. King, in '65, said to us that every time there's this possibility for unity among poor folk, we see a rising of division and violence that is deliberately sown into the public consciousness as a way of dividing people and keeping them apart. I’m very concerned about this nation in violence right now.
But I will tell you that, as Coretta Scott King said, violence is not just guns. Violence is ghetto housing. Violence is poverty. Violence is a lack of healthcare. Violence is the lack of living-wage jobs. And violence is an apathetic attitude that refuses to address these other issues. And right now we have a lot of violent public policy that’s happening at the same time we see these attitudes and mentalities of violence that is raising in this country. And it’s very serious, and we better address it as a nation and bring people together.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Reverend Dr. William Barber, we thank you so much for being with us, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, carrying the torch from Dr. Martin Luther King. On Monday, Democracy Now! will bring a special playing the speeches of Dr. King.
When we come back, we continue to talk about poverty, in the form of homelessness in Oakland, California, where unhoused mothers were just evicted from a home they were occupying that had been vacant for two years. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-16--Putin Proposes Sweeping Changes to Russian Constitution, Possibly Prolonging His Grip on Power

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : We turn now to Russia , where Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned Wednesday , along with his entire Cabinet , in a move that surprised many in Moscow and abroad .
The move came as Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping constitutional changes to expand the power of the parliament and the State Council , while weakening the presidency .
Critics of Putin said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his final presidential term ends in 2024 .
AMY GOODMAN : The lower house of the Russian parliament voted today to confirm Putin ’ s pick for new prime minister , Mikhail Mishustin , a bureaucrat who runs Russia ’ s tax service .
One Russian newspaper described the recent political shake-up as “ the January revolution.
” Well , we ’ re joined now by Tony Wood , author of Russia Without Putin : Money , Power and the Myths of the New Cold War .
He ’ s a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s also the author of Chechnya : The Case for Independence .
So , lay out what happened .
Were you shocked by the developments on Wednesday in Moscow ?
TONY WOOD : Yeah , well , certainly there were a series of surprises .
I don ’ t think anyone was expecting something of this scale .
But on the other hand , I think a lot of people who have been observing Russia closely would say we need to see how this plays out .
Right ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kind of opening gambit in a game that ’ s going to be played out over the next few months .
So I think we can ’ t really rush to say what exactly the effects of this are going to be straightaway .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And just what were the things that he was proposing , though ?
What is it that Putin said yesterday that he wants to do ?
How does he want to change the Constitution ?
TONY WOOD : So , yeah , he gave his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was a very long speech .
And buried sort of towards the end of it were a series of modifications to the Constitution , one of which is to transfer power , much more power , to the parliament than is currently the case .
There ’ s a quirk of the Russian system that it ’ s hyper-presidential .
The parliament has no right to nominate the government .
You can be the largest party in an election , and that doesn ’ t mean you get to form the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prime minister .
Now the power of nominating the prime minister and Cabinet will go to the parliament .
So that ’ s a fairly major shift .
But at the same time , Putin sort of slightly took away from that by saying it will remain a centralized presidential system .
So he ’ s sort of taking away power from the presidency while reaffirming it .
So , it ’ s a little ambiguous there .
AMY GOODMAN : Is it significant who the people are , that Medvedev has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the Security Council — and who the new prime minister is ?
TONY WOOD : Well , so , the new prime minister , I would think he — we should see him as a caretaker figure , really .
There are elections to the parliament due in 2021 .
And really that ’ s when we ’ ll see what kind of system crystallizes out of this .
It ’ s possible that Putin himself will want to be that prime minister and rule indefinitely from a newly empowered parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really a signal that , you know , there is all still to play for .
AMY GOODMAN : And the fact that he was head of the tax service , does that matter ?
TONY WOOD : No .
In some ways , I think , you know , he ’ s just a reliable bureaucrat .
He did increase the tax takes , so he ’ s vaguely competent , which is more than can be said for a lot of leading figures in the Russian elite .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not — he doesn ’ t have an existing power base .
So , for example , if Putin had nominated one of the more prominent security ministry figures to that role , that would have been a signal that that person is a designated successor — excuse me .
The fact that it ’ s Mishustin , who no one had really heard of 'til yesterday , means that this person is not going to stay in that role .
So he 's a temporary figure .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not obvious why it is that the entire Russian government resigned just hours after Putin ’ s announcement .
And also the fact that Medvedev was widely seen as Putin ’ s protégé .
Was this a demotion for him , or what exactly did Putin intend ?
TONY WOOD : Yeah , that ’ s also a little unclear .
I mean , one of the curiosities of the current situation is that no one can really tell whether Medvedev has been booted upstairs or downstairs , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given didn ’ t exist before — deputy head of the Security Council — so it ’ s not really clear what kind of power he will have .
The thing that can be said is that Medvedev was somewhat of a liability for the Putin administration .
Currently , he ’ s really not very popular , has overseen government measures that have been really rejected by the population .
He ’ s been wrapped up in various corruption scandals .
And so , it was a way of making him take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent failures without visibly demoting him , I think .
It ’ s a kind of dignified exit for Medvedev .
But certainly the resignation of the entire Cabinet was not at all required by the changes Putin was recommending , especially since they haven ’ t even happened yet .
So that ’ s a curiosity , definitely .
AMY GOODMAN : Do you see Putin doing something along the lines of what the Chinese President Xi did with getting rid of term limits ?
TONY WOOD : I think , actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the set of changes that he ’ s talking about as designed to avoid that solution .
I think one of the reasons that these things have happened is that since 2018 , when Putin was re-elected to another six-year term , the question on everyone ’ s minds has been “ What is going to happen in 2024 ?
Is he going to stay forever ?
Is he going to leave ?
” And what these changes do is really open up that question to say he ’ s probably not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can ’ t do that , but here are a series of other roles he could slip into , and he will have some kind of alternative power base .
The other thing it says is that whoever becomes president after him is not going to have anywhere near as much power as Putin has had .
So , what ’ s confusing about this , I think — and this is why I think we need to see how this plays out — is that it looks like Putin is carving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a parallel role and remain powerful .
So , he ’ s remaking a system , but breaking it , as well , so that no one has as much power as he used to have .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Tony , your book , Russia Without Putin , makes the argument , in fact , that there has been far too much focus on Putin as an individual figure as against the broader context of the structures in place in Russia .
So could you talk about this move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s being interpreted , in the context of the arguments that you make in your book ?
TONY WOOD : Yeah .
I think one of the main things I want to do in the book is to draw attention to the Russian political system as a system , and that Putin himself , you know , he ’ s regularly described as a kind of autocrat , as if his personal whims totally decided everything that happened in Russia .
I just think that ’ s not the case .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s at the center of this very personalized system .
But on the other hand , he is also an arbiter among a different — a variety of interests within the Russian elite .
And so , he ’ s really — you see him more not as the czar , but as a kind of fulcrum holding it all together .
And I think these moves that he ’ s now undertaking really are going to shake up a lot of things within the Russian elite , and we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power over the next few years .
And that , I think , really should encourage us to look beyond Putin , precisely to see who else is jockeying for power and what it is they ’ re trying to do .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , Alexei Navalny , opposition leader , very prominent , said , “ The main result of Putin ’ s speech : what idiots ( and/or crooks ) are all those who said that Putin would leave in 2024.
” He also said he believes any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fraudulent crap.
” You write extensively about him in your book .
TONY WOOD : I do , yeah .
He ’ s certainly a key figure within the opposition .
I mean , one of the constitutional changes that Putin is proposing to introduce is to introduce a requirement for anyone who wants to be Russian president to have been a resident in Russia for 25 years .
This , in theory , would rule out Navalny , because he has been a resident in the U.S. when he studied at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ruled out Putin when he took power , because he had been living in East Germany .
So , these new requirements , they ’ re somewhat designed to target Navalny and other opposition figures , like Khodorkovsky , who has been a resident in Switzerland some of the time .
So , these are — definitely , Putin is also seeking to protect his flank from oppositionists such as Navalny .
But I think it ’ s true that if there is a vote on these changes , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s curious is that Putin did not use the word “ referendum.
” He used the word “ voting.
” And it ’ s noticeable that other figures within the Russian elite were very quick to say , “ No , no , no .
There will be no referendum .
This can be taken care of in parliament.
” So I think any democratic implications of this are being shut down very quickly .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Tony Wood , we want thank you so much for coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Money , Power and the Myths of the New Cold War , a member of the New Left Review editorial board , also author of Chechnya : The Case for Independence .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to Russia, where Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned Wednesday, along with his entire Cabinet, in a move that surprised many in Moscow and abroad. The move came as Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping constitutional changes to expand the power of the parliament and the State Council, while weakening the presidency. Critics of Putin said the proposals could help him retain power after his final presidential term ends in 2024.
AMY GOODMAN: The lower house of the Russian parliament voted today to confirm Putin’s pick for new prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, a bureaucrat who runs Russia’s tax service. One Russian newspaper described the recent political shake-up as “the January revolution.”
Well, we’re joined now by Tony Wood, author of Russia Without Putin: Money, Power and the Myths of the New Cold War. He’s a member of the New Left Review editorial board. He’s also the author of Chechnya: The Case for Independence.
So, lay out what happened. Were you shocked by the developments on Wednesday in Moscow?
TONY WOOD: Yeah, well, certainly there were a series of surprises. I don’t think anyone was expecting something of this scale. But on the other hand, I think a lot of people who have been observing Russia closely would say we need to see how this plays out. Right? I think we should greet this as really a kind of opening gambit in a game that’s going to be played out over the next few months. So I think we can’t really rush to say what exactly the effects of this are going to be straightaway.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And just what were the things that he was proposing, though? What is it that Putin said yesterday that he wants to do? How does he want to change the Constitution?
TONY WOOD: So, yeah, he gave his annual address to both houses of parliament. It was a very long speech. And buried sort of towards the end of it were a series of modifications to the Constitution, one of which is to transfer power, much more power, to the parliament than is currently the case. There’s a quirk of the Russian system that it’s hyper-presidential. The parliament has no right to nominate the government. You can be the largest party in an election, and that doesn’t mean you get to form the Cabinet. You don’t get the prime minister. Now the power of nominating the prime minister and Cabinet will go to the parliament. So that’s a fairly major shift. But at the same time, Putin sort of slightly took away from that by saying it will remain a centralized presidential system. So he’s sort of taking away power from the presidency while reaffirming it. So, it’s a little ambiguous there.
AMY GOODMAN: Is it significant who the people are, that Medvedev has resigned — he’ll become deputy head of the Security Council — and who the new prime minister is?
TONY WOOD: Well, so, the new prime minister, I would think he — we should see him as a caretaker figure, really. There are elections to the parliament due in 2021. And really that’s when we’ll see what kind of system crystallizes out of this. It’s possible that Putin himself will want to be that prime minister and rule indefinitely from a newly empowered parliament. And so the nomination of Mishustin is really a signal that, you know, there is all still to play for.
AMY GOODMAN: And the fact that he was head of the tax service, does that matter?
TONY WOOD: No. In some ways, I think, you know, he’s just a reliable bureaucrat. He did increase the tax takes, so he’s vaguely competent, which is more than can be said for a lot of leading figures in the Russian elite. But it’s also that he’s not — he doesn’t have an existing power base. So, for example, if Putin had nominated one of the more prominent security ministry figures to that role, that would have been a signal that that person is a designated successor — excuse me. The fact that it’s Mishustin, who no one had really heard of 'til yesterday, means that this person is not going to stay in that role. So he's a temporary figure.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And could you explain, Tony — I mean, it’s not obvious why it is that the entire Russian government resigned just hours after Putin’s announcement. And also the fact that Medvedev was widely seen as Putin’s protégé. Was this a demotion for him, or what exactly did Putin intend?
TONY WOOD: Yeah, that’s also a little unclear. I mean, one of the curiosities of the current situation is that no one can really tell whether Medvedev has been booted upstairs or downstairs, because the new role that he has been given didn’t exist before — deputy head of the Security Council — so it’s not really clear what kind of power he will have.
The thing that can be said is that Medvedev was somewhat of a liability for the Putin administration. Currently, he’s really not very popular, has overseen government measures that have been really rejected by the population. He’s been wrapped up in various corruption scandals. And so, it was a way of making him take a hit for the government’s recent failures without visibly demoting him, I think. It’s a kind of dignified exit for Medvedev. But certainly the resignation of the entire Cabinet was not at all required by the changes Putin was recommending, especially since they haven’t even happened yet. So that’s a curiosity, definitely.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see Putin doing something along the lines of what the Chinese President Xi did with getting rid of term limits?
TONY WOOD: I think, actually, we need to see this change and the set of changes that he’s talking about as designed to avoid that solution. I think one of the reasons that these things have happened is that since 2018, when Putin was re-elected to another six-year term, the question on everyone’s minds has been “What is going to happen in 2024? Is he going to stay forever? Is he going to leave?” And what these changes do is really open up that question to say he’s probably not going to stay as president, because he can’t do that, but here are a series of other roles he could slip into, and he will have some kind of alternative power base.
The other thing it says is that whoever becomes president after him is not going to have anywhere near as much power as Putin has had. So, what’s confusing about this, I think — and this is why I think we need to see how this plays out — is that it looks like Putin is carving out a way for him to slide into a parallel role and remain powerful. So, he’s remaking a system, but breaking it, as well, so that no one has as much power as he used to have.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Tony, your book, Russia Without Putin, makes the argument, in fact, that there has been far too much focus on Putin as an individual figure as against the broader context of the structures in place in Russia. So could you talk about this move of Putin, the way it’s being interpreted, in the context of the arguments that you make in your book?
TONY WOOD: Yeah. I think one of the main things I want to do in the book is to draw attention to the Russian political system as a system, and that Putin himself, you know, he’s regularly described as a kind of autocrat, as if his personal whims totally decided everything that happened in Russia. I just think that’s not the case. He’s certainly a crucial figure. He’s at the center of this very personalized system. But on the other hand, he is also an arbiter among a different — a variety of interests within the Russian elite. And so, he’s really — you see him more not as the czar, but as a kind of fulcrum holding it all together.
And I think these moves that he’s now undertaking really are going to shake up a lot of things within the Russian elite, and we’re going to see different figures jockeying for power over the next few years. And that, I think, really should encourage us to look beyond Putin, precisely to see who else is jockeying for power and what it is they’re trying to do.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Alexei Navalny, opposition leader, very prominent, said, “The main result of Putin’s speech: what idiots (and/or crooks) are all those who said that Putin would leave in 2024.” He also said he believes any referendum on the constitutional changes would be “fraudulent crap.” You write extensively about him in your book.
TONY WOOD: I do, yeah. He’s certainly a key figure within the opposition. I mean, one of the constitutional changes that Putin is proposing to introduce is to introduce a requirement for anyone who wants to be Russian president to have been a resident in Russia for 25 years. This, in theory, would rule out Navalny, because he has been a resident in the U.S. when he studied at Yale. Ironically, it would also have ruled out Putin when he took power, because he had been living in East Germany. So, these new requirements, they’re somewhat designed to target Navalny and other opposition figures, like Khodorkovsky, who has been a resident in Switzerland some of the time. So, these are — definitely, Putin is also seeking to protect his flank from oppositionists such as Navalny.
But I think it’s true that if there is a vote on these changes, there’s very likely to be fraud, but what’s curious is that Putin did not use the word “referendum.” He used the word “voting.” And it’s noticeable that other figures within the Russian elite were very quick to say, “No, no, no. There will be no referendum. This can be taken care of in parliament.” So I think any democratic implications of this are being shut down very quickly.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Tony Wood, we want thank you so much for coming in, author of Russia Without Putin: Money, Power and the Myths of the New Cold War, a member of the New Left Review editorial board, also author of Chechnya: The Case for Independence.


democracynow--2020-01-16--Trump Becomes Just Third U.S. President to Face Impeachment Trial as Case Moves to the Senate

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : The House of Representatives has formally delivered to the Senate articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump , setting the stage for just the third impeachment trial of a U.S. president in history .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : The articles were delivered by the impeachment managers who were named earlier in the day by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
AMY GOODMAN : The House impeached President Trump in December for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden .
But House Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the articles of impeachment to the Senate .
Since the House voted to impeach Trump , more evidence has come to light about the actions of Trump and his associates .
On Wednesday , a key figure in the impeachment saga spoke publicly for the first time about his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden .
Lev Parnas , a Soviet-born businessman and former associate of Trump ’ s lawyer Rudy Giuliani , told MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow that the president was fully aware of his activities .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re joined by Elie Mystal , justice correspondent for The Nation , author of the magazine ’ s new monthly column , “ Objection !
” Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Elie .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
ELIE MYSTAL : Thanks for having me .
AMY GOODMAN : This was an historic day in Washington , D.C. Can you lay out what exactly took place ?
AMY GOODMAN : Take us through the day .
ELIE MYSTAL : It ’ s all going down now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that , look , Nancy Pelosi named the impeachment managers .
She formally submitted the impeachment articles to the Senate .
Trump is impeached , as Nancy Pelosi put it , forever .
Right ?
Impeachment now , impeachment tomorrow , impeachment forever .
That is on Trump ’ s résumé for the rest of history .
I hope he sleeps well tonight .
With the naming of the managers , however , I think we have a sense of Pelosi ’ s strategy here .
If Nancy Pelosi really thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fait accompli in the Senate , that it was just going to be 51 votes to acquit Trump , nothing was going to change that , and it was just kind of for show , I think she might have named impeachment managers that were more for show .
Right ?
Justin Amash , the Republican-turned- “ I now get it ” guy , like he might have been thrown in there .
You might have thrown in Eric Swalwell , who is great on television and great at making speeches .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just to be like , “ Let ’ s do this.
” Right ?
Instead , she went in a different direction .
She picked people with real courtroom trial experience , right ?
Jason Crow from Colorado , that ’ s a litigator that she threw up in there .
Val Demings from Florida , that is a law enforcement officer that she — AMY GOODMAN : She was the police chief .
ELIE MYSTAL : — you know , that she — that ’ s a cop that she sicced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that suggests to me that Pelosi at least thinks or hopes that there will be witnesses , there will be cross-examination , and this will be something more approaching a real trial situation as opposed to kind of just a show .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Can you explain , Elie , what exactly is the role of the managers ?
And also , in the Clinton impeachment trial , there were 13 managers , whereas in this one there ’ s seven .
Why is that ?
ELIE MYSTAL : Thirteen all-men managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not what ’ s happening right now .
Look , the roles of the managers are going to be so determined by the Senate ’ s own rules .
The Senate is not just the jury in this trial .
They are the judge ; they are potentially the executioner .
They set the entire tempo and temperament of the thing .
So , what the managers get to do will depend largely on what Mitch McConnell says they can do and wants them to do .
If there are witnesses , arguably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one cross-examining witnesses , although , technically , Mitch McConnell can — doesn ’ t even have to let them do that if he doesn ’ t want to .
So , the Constitution says that the Senate will take this up .
It doesn ’ t say how .
It doesn ’ t say — it doesn ’ t provide for process .
So McConnell still has a lot of cards to play .
One of the ways that I like to think of the situation , having followed Mitch McConnell for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I try to think of what the worst person in the world would do , and then see if that helps McConnell , because if the worst person in the world would do it and it helps Republicans , then McConnell is going to do it .
So , one of the things I ’ m worried about , for instance , is it looks like there are 51 votes to call witnesses , seems like Romney , Murkowski , Collins , Lamar Alexander — seems like they ’ re all kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they might vote to call witnesses .
But let ’ s say that happens .
McConnell doesn ’ t have to put that on television .
There ’ s nothing in the Constitution that says he does .
Could he — NERMEEN SHAIKH : Is the trial going to be public , entirely public ?
ELIE MYSTAL : Doesn ’ t have to be .
I mean , there ’ s nothing in the Constitution that requires — you ’ ve got to remember , there is nothing in the Constitution that requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
And he is one of the worst people .
AMY GOODMAN : Let ’ s go to Nancy Pelosi and then McConnell .
Speaking from the House floor , Nancy Pelosi addressed her reluctance to pursue an impeachment inquiry against Trump , to begin with .
AMY GOODMAN : And now I want to go to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaking on Wednesday .
AMY GOODMAN : Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
The articles of impeachment have been transferred to the Senate .
They ’ ve been delivered .
Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States John Roberts will swear in the jurors .
They are the senators of the United States , taking off , by the way , the senators who are running for president , Klobuchar and Warren and Sanders , off the campaign trail , because they ’ ll have to sit through this period of who knows how long the trial will be .
But let ’ s talk about the witnesses and this whole controversy , the reason — one of the reasons Nancy Pelosi held back the articles of impeachment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going to have witnesses .
One after another Republican senator have voiced concern now , for example , Utah Senator Mitt Romney .
ELIE MYSTAL : Yeah .
So , first of all , let ’ s give it up to Speaker Pelosi .
She withheld those articles .
And over the past month we ’ ve seen Republicans finally start to fall , finally start to break ranks and get towards bringing witnesses .
I think this is nothing other than a win for Nancy Pelosi .
But yeah , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alexander in Tennessee , perhaps Susan Collins — I mean , Susan Collins , I mean , it really depends on which way the wind is blowing that day , but , like , whatever .
So it looks like that we have enough for witnesses .
And if there are witnesses , there are people that we need to hear from .
Obviously , the big fish is John Bolton , the former national security adviser .
He seems to have been through it all .
He seems to have seen it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
I , for one , would like to know what he has to say .
AMY GOODMAN : And he called what happened in Ukraine , apparently , a drug deal .
AMY GOODMAN : And Lev Parnas , this new — he ’ s not new .
He ’ s indicted .
He ’ s under federal indictment .
But he ’ s now talking everywhere , has said that he is key .
And Lev Parnas , apparently , all that he has now just gotten from the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment that were transferred to the Senate .
ELIE MYSTAL : What you want , I think , is people with firsthand conversations with Donald Trump .
In the House inquiry , because — and this is so important for people to remember , especially if you ’ re like fighting with Republicans on Twitter .
In the House inquiry , Trump blocked those firsthand people .
Right ?
Like , all of this , like , “ Oh , it was so unfair !
Totally unfair !
” It ’ s because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses from testifying .
He blocked McConnell .
He blocked Mulvaney .
The House would like to have spoken to them during their investigation .
Trump didn ’ t allow that to happen .
So we had Gordon Sondland , we had Hill , Fiona Hill , people who saw it but didn ’ t speak directly to the president .
Only Sondland spoke directly to the president , throughout the House inquiry .
Now , in the Senate trial , we should be able to hear from people who spoke directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , to me , that includes Mick Mulvaney .
Mick Mulvaney is the one who put the stop on the money .
If Trump had a good reason for that , Mick Mulvaney is the one who can say so — or not .
So , these are the people that I want to hear from .
These are , I think , the people that the American people deserve to hear from .
And on the flipside of this , I mean , you brought up , off air , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thinks is a poison bill , like — ELIE MYSTAL : “ If you get to call your guys , then we get to call Hunter Biden.
” Man , bring it on !
Hunter Biden , come on down !
I ’ m not — you want to trade Hunter Biden for Bolton and Mulvaney ?
Please , bring it .
I have no problem with Hunter Biden being forced to testify .
Hunter Biden is just going to have to take one for the team .
Right ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not appropriate .
It ’ s part of the Republican shell game that they ’ re running .
But , like , Hunter Biden can — I will make that trade every day and twice on Sunday .
AMY GOODMAN : Do you think Lev Parnas ?
ELIE MYSTAL : I would love to see Lev Parnas .
And again , whatever reciprocation the Republicans — go ahead .
Call Joe Biden .
Call Tito Biden .
Call Elmo Biden .
I don ’ t care , because it ’ s not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
And no amount of testimony is going to change that fact .
The person who did something wrong is Donald Trump .
And the people who know that Donald Trump did something wrong are John Bolton , Mick Mulvaney , Lev Parnas and all of them .
So , call all of them , and you can have — you can take your potshots at Hunter Biden all you want .
We ’ ll get him a nice watch .
He ’ ll be fine .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any witnesses are called at all , though the call for them is growing very loud .
I want to thank you , Elie Mystal , Nation 's justice correspondent , author of the magazine 's new monthly column , “ Objection !
” When we come back , we ’ ll look at the shake-up in Moscow .
Russia ’ s prime minister , the entire Cabinet , has resigned .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The House of Representatives has formally delivered to the Senate articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, setting the stage for just the third impeachment trial of a U.S. president in history.
LAURA DOVE: Mr. President, a message from the House of Representatives.
CHERYL JOHNSON: Mr. President, I have been directed by the House of Representatives to inform the Senate the House has passed H. Res. 798, a resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, president of the United States.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: The message will be received.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The articles were delivered by the impeachment managers who were named earlier in the day by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: So, today, we will make history. When we walk down — when the managers walk down the hall, we will cross a threshold in history, delivering articles of impeachment against the president of the United States for abuse of power and obstruction of the House.
AMY GOODMAN: The House impeached President Trump in December for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waited until now to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Since the House voted to impeach Trump, more evidence has come to light about the actions of Trump and his associates. On Wednesday, a key figure in the impeachment saga spoke publicly for the first time about his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman and former associate of Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that the president was fully aware of his activities.
RACHEL MADDOW: What do you think is the main inaccuracy or the main lie that’s being told that you feel like you can correct?
LEV PARNAS: That the president didn’t know what was going on. President Trump knew exactly what was going on. He was aware of all of my movements. He — I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, author of the magazine’s new monthly column, “Objection!”
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Elie. It’s great to have you with us.
ELIE MYSTAL: Thanks for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: This was an historic day in Washington, D.C. Can you lay out what exactly took place?
ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Take us through the day.
ELIE MYSTAL: It’s all going down now, isn’t it? I think that, look, Nancy Pelosi named the impeachment managers. She formally submitted the impeachment articles to the Senate. Trump is impeached, as Nancy Pelosi put it, forever. Right? Impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever. That is on Trump’s résumé for the rest of history. I hope he sleeps well tonight.
With the naming of the managers, however, I think we have a sense of Pelosi’s strategy here. If Nancy Pelosi really thought that this was just going to be a fait accompli in the Senate, that it was just going to be 51 votes to acquit Trump, nothing was going to change that, and it was just kind of for show, I think she might have named impeachment managers that were more for show. Right? Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-“I now get it” guy, like he might have been thrown in there. You might have thrown in Eric Swalwell, who is great on television and great at making speeches. You might have even thrown in Rashida Tlaib, just to be like, “Let’s do this.” Right? Instead, she went in a different direction. She picked people with real courtroom trial experience, right? Jason Crow from Colorado, that’s a litigator that she threw up in there. Val Demings from Florida, that is a law enforcement officer that she —
AMY GOODMAN: She was the police chief.
ELIE MYSTAL: — you know, that she — that’s a cop that she sicced on Trump, right? So, that suggests to me that Pelosi at least thinks or hopes that there will be witnesses, there will be cross-examination, and this will be something more approaching a real trial situation as opposed to kind of just a show.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you explain, Elie, what exactly is the role of the managers? And also, in the Clinton impeachment trial, there were 13 managers, whereas in this one there’s seven. Why is that?
ELIE MYSTAL: Thirteen all-men managers, which, you know, is not what’s happening right now.
Look, the roles of the managers are going to be so determined by the Senate’s own rules. The Senate is not just the jury in this trial. They are the judge; they are potentially the executioner. They set the entire tempo and temperament of the thing. So, what the managers get to do will depend largely on what Mitch McConnell says they can do and wants them to do. If there are witnesses, arguably, the impeachment managers would be the one cross-examining witnesses, although, technically, Mitch McConnell can — doesn’t even have to let them do that if he doesn’t want to. So, the Constitution says that the Senate will take this up. It doesn’t say how. It doesn’t say — it doesn’t provide for process. So McConnell still has a lot of cards to play.
One of the ways that I like to think of the situation, having followed Mitch McConnell for quite some time now, is that I try to think of what the worst person in the world would do, and then see if that helps McConnell, because if the worst person in the world would do it and it helps Republicans, then McConnell is going to do it. So, one of the things I’m worried about, for instance, is it looks like there are 51 votes to call witnesses, seems like Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Lamar Alexander — seems like they’re all kind of, you know, squeamish enough that they might vote to call witnesses. But let’s say that happens. McConnell doesn’t have to put that on television. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says he does. Could he —
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Is the trial going to be public, entirely public?
ELIE MYSTAL: Doesn’t have to be. I mean, there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires — you’ve got to remember, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires McConnell to be any better than he is. And he is one of the worst people.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Nancy Pelosi and then McConnell. Speaking from the House floor, Nancy Pelosi addressed her reluctance to pursue an impeachment inquiry against Trump, to begin with.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: For a long time, I resisted the calls from across the country for impeachment of the president for obvious violations of the Constitution that he had committed. But recognizing the divisiveness of impeachment, I held back. Frankly, I said, this president isn’t worth it. But when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding funds from Ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal and political, he crossed a threshold. He gave us no choice.
AMY GOODMAN: And now I want to go to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaking on Wednesday.
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL: Presidential impeachment may be the gravest process our Constitution contemplates. It undoes the people’s decision in a national election. Going about it in this subjective, unfair and rushed way is corrosive to our institutions. It hurts national unity. And it virtually guarantees — guarantees — that future houses of either party will feel free — free — to impeach any future president because they don’t like him. You don’t like him? Impeach him. That’s the message coming out of this.
AMY GOODMAN: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The articles of impeachment have been transferred to the Senate. They’ve been delivered. Today, the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts will swear in the jurors. They are the senators of the United States, taking off, by the way, the senators who are running for president, Klobuchar and Warren and Sanders, off the campaign trail, because they’ll have to sit through this period of who knows how long the trial will be. But let’s talk about the witnesses and this whole controversy, the reason — one of the reasons Nancy Pelosi held back the articles of impeachment, when Mitch McConnell said he wasn’t going to have witnesses. One after another Republican senator have voiced concern now, for example, Utah Senator Mitt Romney.
ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah. So, first of all, let’s give it up to Speaker Pelosi. She withheld those articles. And over the past month we’ve seen Republicans finally start to fall, finally start to break ranks and get towards bringing witnesses. I think this is nothing other than a win for Nancy Pelosi. But yeah, it looks like Romney, Murkowski, Lamar Alexander in Tennessee, perhaps Susan Collins — I mean, Susan Collins, I mean, it really depends on which way the wind is blowing that day, but, like, whatever. So it looks like that we have enough for witnesses. And if there are witnesses, there are people that we need to hear from. Obviously, the big fish is John Bolton, the former national security adviser. He seems to have been through it all. He seems to have seen it all. He seems to want to testify. I, for one, would like to know what he has to say.
AMY GOODMAN: And he called what happened in Ukraine, apparently, a drug deal.
ELIE MYSTAL: A drug deal. Right?
AMY GOODMAN: And Lev Parnas, this new — he’s not new. He’s indicted. He’s under federal indictment. But he’s now talking everywhere, has said that he is key. And Lev Parnas, apparently, all that he has now just gotten from the court has been included in the articles of impeachment that were transferred to the Senate.
ELIE MYSTAL: What you want, I think, is people with firsthand conversations with Donald Trump. In the House inquiry, because — and this is so important for people to remember, especially if you’re like fighting with Republicans on Twitter. In the House inquiry, Trump blocked those firsthand people. Right? Like, all of this, like, “Oh, it was so unfair! Totally unfair!” It’s because Trump, the defendant, blocked the witnesses from testifying. He blocked McConnell. He blocked Mulvaney. The House would like to have spoken to them during their investigation. Trump didn’t allow that to happen. So we had Gordon Sondland, we had Hill, Fiona Hill, people who saw it but didn’t speak directly to the president. Only Sondland spoke directly to the president, throughout the House inquiry.
Now, in the Senate trial, we should be able to hear from people who spoke directly to the president. That includes Bolton. And, to me, that includes Mick Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney is the one who put the stop on the money. If Trump had a good reason for that, Mick Mulvaney is the one who can say so — or not. So, these are the people that I want to hear from. These are, I think, the people that the American people deserve to hear from. And on the flipside of this, I mean, you brought up, off air, the Cruz, the Ted Cruz, what he thinks is a poison bill, like —
AMY GOODMAN: Reciprocal witnesses?
ELIE MYSTAL: “If you get to call your guys, then we get to call Hunter Biden.” Man, bring it on! Hunter Biden, come on down! I’m not — you want to trade Hunter Biden for Bolton and Mulvaney? Please, bring it. I have no problem with Hunter Biden being forced to testify. Hunter Biden is just going to have to take one for the team. Right? It’s not relevant. It’s not appropriate. It’s part of the Republican shell game that they’re running. But, like, Hunter Biden can — I will make that trade every day and twice on Sunday.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Lev Parnas?
ELIE MYSTAL: I would love to see Lev Parnas. And again, whatever reciprocation the Republicans — go ahead. Call Joe Biden. Call Tito Biden. Call Elmo Biden. I don’t care, because it’s not going to change. The Bidens did nothing wrong. And no amount of testimony is going to change that fact. The person who did something wrong is Donald Trump. And the people who know that Donald Trump did something wrong are John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Lev Parnas and all of them. So, call all of them, and you can have — you can take your potshots at Hunter Biden all you want. We’ll get him a nice watch. He’ll be fine.
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll certainly see what happens and whether any witnesses are called at all, though the call for them is growing very loud. I want to thank you, Elie Mystal, Nation's justice correspondent, author of the magazine's new monthly column, “Objection!”
When we come back, we’ll look at the shake-up in Moscow. Russia’s prime minister, the entire Cabinet, has resigned. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-16--Headlines for January 16, 2020

Headlines for January 16, 2020

The House of Representatives has formally delivered articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate , setting the @ @ @ @ @ Senate impeachment trial of a president in U.S. history .
The articles were delivered by @ @ @ @ @ named earlier in the day by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi : @ @ @ @ @ clear that this president will be held accountable , that no one is above the @ @ @ @ @ president should ever entertain the idea that Article I — I mean , excuse me @ @ @ @ @ that he can do whatever he wants.
” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that @ @ @ @ @ Roberts will swear in senators as jurors today at 2 p.m. Eastern , and the @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .

The House of Representatives has formally delivered articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate, setting the stage for just the third Senate impeachment trial of a president in U.S. history. The articles were delivered by the impeachment managers who were named earlier in the day by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Make it be very clear that this president will be held accountable, that no one is above the law and that no future president should ever entertain the idea that Article I — I mean, excuse me, Article II — says that he can do whatever he wants.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in senators as jurors today at 2 p.m. Eastern, and the impeachment trial will start next Tuesday.