democracynow--2020-02-06--Chaos Continues in Iowa as Democrats Mistakenly Award Delegates for Bernie Sanders to Deval Patrick

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 : Democratic officials in Iowa are continuing to release official results from Monday ’ s caucus .
Senator Bernie Sanders and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg are now in a virtual tie with 97 % of precincts reporting .
Sanders maintains a lead in the popular vote , but Buttigieg has a slight advantage in what ’ s known as the “ state delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of state delegate equivalents , while Sanders has 26.1 % .
The New York Times is now predicting Sanders has a greater chance of winning overall , in part [ because ] of the Vermont senator ’ s overwhelming strength in satellite caucuses in Iowa and around the country .
AMY GOODMAN : And world .
Democratic officials have attributed the chaos in Iowa to a newly created app built by a little-known firm called Shadow , which has ties to the Democratic establishment as well as the Pete Buttigieg campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread criticism over its slow release of results and , in some cases , for issuing incorrect results .
In one case , Black Hawk County , delegates for Bernie Sanders were mistakenly given to Deval Patrick .
We go now to Cedar Rapids , Iowa , where we ’ re joined by Chris Schwartz .
He ’ s the chair of the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors , the state co-chair for Bernie 2020 .
He ’ s also the state director of Americans for Democratic Action .
Chris Schwartz , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t you just — this is such a confusing story about what ’ s taking place in Iowa , still so unclear , so much secrecy .
Maybe the word “ shadow ” is appropriate here .
Take us through what has taken place so far in Iowa .
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yeah .
Thank you , Amy .
It ’ s an honor to be here with Democracy Now !
here today .
And so , caucus night , things seemed to be going relatively smoothly in my very diverse precinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse city in the state of Iowa .
We were in and out of our caucus site in less than an hour and left feeling good , like , “ Hey , this thing ran smoothly .
We ’ re going to know results tonight.
” And then the hours just went on and on and on , and didn ’ t have a sense of what was going on , then finding out that the app wasn ’ t working for reporting .
And then they didn ’ t have the backup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we were finding out that precinct chairs , who were all volunteers , who did a pretty good job of running their sites , were just waiting on hold for hours and hours and hours — AMY GOODMAN : Had you practiced before the day of — CHRIS SCHWARTZ : — and finally giving up and going to bed .
AMY GOODMAN : — the caucus , Chris ?
Had you practiced ?
Had you ever seen this app ?
Had people tried to put some information in to see if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I had never seen the app .
Only people that were precinct chairs running it had access .
And it ’ s my understanding that most of them just saw it just the weekend before .
Some of them were trying to download the app at the actual caucus site that night .
And so , there had not been enough of a practice run .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , Chris , it seems extraordinary , given the stakes in this election , that Democrats would take a risk of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even been tested .
And you say that only precinct chairs saw it , and that , too , just the weekend before .
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yeah , no , it was a pretty , pretty remarkable thing .
And , you know , sometimes you ’ re recruiting precinct chairs up to the last minute to run these caucus sites .
So , to think that they could be trained on this new technology , there really should have been some other kind of dry run to see if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of going for the Iowa caucuses .
AMY GOODMAN : So , keep going .
So the hours drag out .
AMY GOODMAN : The app doesn ’ t work .
How do you get the Black Hawk County caucus information — AMY GOODMAN : — to central command or whoever it is that is counting this up ?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yeah , so the hours are going on .
It was about 2:00 on Tuesday .
I had gotten an email from our county party secretary , just letting me know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sizable margin Black Hawk County , and he knew that I would want to have that information .
About an hour later , I went down to our county party office to volunteer and help stuff the envelopes of materials that get sent on to the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines , at which point I was shown the breakdown of what the first round of voting and what the final delegate count would be for our county convention , at which point it showed a good almost thousand-vote lead in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that increased when you went even to the second round of viability .
And so , this was at about 2:00 that day I knew what was going on , that we had won Black Hawk County really big .
But it still wasn ’ t included in that first initial round of 64 % of precincts that was released .
And I was getting concerned .
Nobody in our county party understood why those numbers weren ’ t included .
AMY GOODMAN : Because you had reported them .
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I reached out to Troy Price , the state chair of the Iowa Democratic Party , and asked , you know , “ What is the process that this needs to go through to get released ?
” you know , trying to give him the benefit of the doubt , trying to understand what their process was they were going through .
And I just heard crickets .
I heard nothing back , when he ’ s usually been very responsive to me on things .
And so , finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
I said , “ Hey , you know , I ’ m still waiting on this stuff.
” And then I just like was feeling guilty that I knew the results for our county , but the constituents that I represent didn ’ t — the volunteers of all these different campaigns , the volunteers that ran these caucus sites and worked really hard to do it , all the people that came in from across the country to get out the vote .
We had 40 people staying at our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And these people had a right to know what the results of their work was .
And so , we tweeted it out .
I was actually driving , so my fiancé Logan was handling my phone , and I just told him what to tweet out .
And we put the results out there on Twitter and Facebook , apparently just at the same time that the Iowa Democratic Party was releasing another round of results , to find out that they had given all these Bernie Sanders delegates in Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patrick — and it shouldn ’ t even come as a surprise to Deval Patrick himself — didn ’ t have any support in Black Hawk County that evening .
And so , we ’ re just finding out that as we were putting out these results , they were putting out results that are totally contrary .
And I think it forced them to immediately walk back what they had put out .
AMY GOODMAN : So , to be clear — CHRIS SCHWARTZ : And so , it really questioned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s taking so long to get these results out , yet they release them , and then they still get it wrong .
You know , what is going on ?
What is the process ?
Nobody is being told this .
I ’ m a member of the Democratic Party .
I ’ m an elected official in the state .
I still can ’ t even get my answers , you know , answered .
AMY GOODMAN : So , to be clear , Chris , I mean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Black Hawk County — Black Hawk County caucus results : Sanders , 2,149 votes , that ’ s 155 county delegates ; Buttigieg , 1,578 votes , that ’ s 111 county delegates .
So , that ’ s like a 44-county-delegate lead for Sanders .
And you had given it to them early .
It ’ s not that they didn ’ t have yours , that you weren ’ t able to get through .
When he finally got through , you then saw results after results posted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawk County was not included .
And then you saw it was counted as the former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick ’ s votes ?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yeah .
At first , things were not being included .
And then , when they finally were included , they had all these precincts going to Deval Patrick , which just didn ’ t make any sense .
You know , like I said , my caucus was done in under an hour .
And it took almost 48 hours for the Iowa Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : Now , in our lede , we talked about a number of places now predicting that actually Bernie Sanders — I mean , it ’ s a virtual tie between him and Buttigieg now , but could pull ahead because of the satellite caucuses .
Now , if you could explain ?
This is such an obscure process , that people in this country , I don ’ t think , even understand .
AMY GOODMAN : Maybe even in Iowa .
Satellite caucuses take place in Iowa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world , for the Iowa caucus ?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yes .
So , the satellite caucuses were a new thing this year , one of the reforms to try and make the caucuses more accessible , because as most people looking at this , the caucus is — there ’ s a hurdle to accessibility , whether you ’ re disabled or a working person who can ’ t get off work to come out and participate for a one-hour or two-hour , three-hour-long process .
And so , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was shut down .
And so they decided to do these satellite caucuses , that were geared — held in union halls .
There were some satellite caucuses that were geared for persons with disabilities .
There were satellite caucuses that were Spanish-language .
And it ’ s my understanding that we ’ re waiting on a lot of them in the — that were located in the 1st Congressional District in eastern Iowa .
And Bernie Sanders was very strong at all of those .
I ’ m hearing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of those satellite caucus sites .
So I think that it ’ s going to be very interesting to see if that tips the scales here when we get those results .
But what ’ s clear to me is that more Iowans came out and supported Bernie Sanders on caucus night .
And so , if there ’ s such difficulty figuring out the accuracy of the delegates and what the state delegate equivalents are and what that proper equation is , then let ’ s just go with the popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bernie Sanders had the most amount of support in Iowa on caucus night .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Chris , could you explain , before we conclude , why is it that a new app was introduced in the first place ?
I mean , were there difficulties or problems with the app that was used during the Iowa caucus in 2016 ?
What was the justification given for the introduction of an app that was not tested ?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yes , it ’ s a very good question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used in 2016 .
I was someone who ran my caucus site as the precinct chair in 2016 , and we just phoned in our results .
There were enough people answering the phone that night .
I got through right away and really had had no issues .
And so , that ’ s why — you know , it was very close that night , and that ’ s why I believe it went late into night , because it was coming down so close between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours of the end of the caucus night , because we were using the old standard system of phoning in your results and then dropping off your packet at your county party headquarters .
And then that ’ s all sent to Des Moines so that the record is there .
And I think this — I just don ’ t understand why , if the app wasn ’ t working , why we didn ’ t have enough people operating those phone systems .
AMY GOODMAN : I ’ m looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A person with knowledge of the company ’ s culture ” — talking about Shadow , the app creator — “ who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal , shared communications showing that top officials at the company regularly expressed hostility to Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s supporters .
McGowan is married to Michael Halle ” — now , McGowan is the head of ACRONYM , which owns Shadow , and McGowan , Tara McGowan , is married to Michael Halle , or Halle , H-A-L-L-E — “ a senior strategist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no evidence any preference of candidates had any effect on the coding issue that is stalling the Iowa results.
” But as we wrap up , Chris , if you can talk about the significance of all of this ?
And , you know , this has certainly opened the discussion again whether Iowa should be first .
You talked about Black Hawk County and Waterloo being the most diverse area of Iowa , but the fact is , Iowa and New Hampshire , two of the whitest states in the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who could be president in 2021 .
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Yeah .
Well , I would — you know , I think there ’ s a lot of information developing about the app that is still unclear .
One thing that is clear to me is that the decision wasn ’ t made by the entire State Central Committee of the Democratic Party , and those are the folks that the party elects to represent us and decide the direction of the state party .
I guess it was a decision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the State Central Committee that were questioning the use of this app , whether it was secure and whether we had the proper backups in place , I ’ m being told by those State Central Committee members that those voices were quelled .
I do certainly think — I mean , there are pluses and minuses of the Iowa caucus .
You know , a plus of being in a small state like Iowa is that the community organizing still matters in this , versus just being a big media market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my magic wand , I would probably just have us do a primary all on the same day as Iowa , New Hampshire , South Carolina and Nevada .
And then you ’ ve got a really great cross-section of America .
You have rural states , you have more urban areas , you have much more diversity that reflects the melting pot that is America , all in states there where community organizing and mobilization would still matter .
And so , that would be what I would tell the DNC : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s held in those four states all on the same day , when this is up next .
AMY GOODMAN : I think also people would not be aware in the country that Bernie Sanders , I mean , now in a virtual tie with Buttigieg — they ’ re 0.1 % apart on the delegate equivalents , as you talk about it in Iowa , but thousands of popular votes ahead , right ?
At this point , 2,500 ?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ : Absolutely .
So , it is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support of Iowans on caucus night .
And so , I think that ’ s what people should be looking at around the country , is that this movement came out here in Iowa .
In my own precinct , it was very , very diverse support of young black and brown and queer and straight people coming together to support Sanders .
And that ’ s what our coalition looks like all across this country .
And I believe there ’ s a movement that is ready to elect Sanders president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentum going off of these early victories in Iowa .
And I predict we ’ re going to do very well in New Hampshire on Tuesday .
AMY GOODMAN : Chris Schwartz , I want to thank you for being with us , chair of the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors , the state co-chair for Bernie 2020 , as well as state director of Americans for Democratic Action , speaking to us from Cedar Rapids , Iowa .
This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , what has happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the United States ?
A new report is out .
We ’ re going to be talking about that tomorrow .
But today , we ’ re going to talk about the National Archives .
You heard about the changing of the photographs of the 2017 march , Women ’ s March .
Well , now there ’ s a new story .
What else is being erased ?
For example , ICE records .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ American Me ” by Masta Ace and Marco Polo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 25th birthday .

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: Democratic officials in Iowa are continuing to release official results from Monday’s caucus. Senator Bernie Sanders and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg are now in a virtual tie with 97% of precincts reporting. Sanders maintains a lead in the popular vote, but Buttigieg has a slight advantage in what’s known as the “state delegate equivalent” race. Buttigieg has 26.2% of state delegate equivalents, while Sanders has 26.1%. The New York Times is now predicting Sanders has a greater chance of winning overall, in part [because] of the Vermont senator’s overwhelming strength in satellite caucuses in Iowa and around the country.
AMY GOODMAN: And world. Democratic officials have attributed the chaos in Iowa to a newly created app built by a little-known firm called Shadow, which has ties to the Democratic establishment as well as the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Democratic leaders in Iowa are also facing widespread criticism over its slow release of results and, in some cases, for issuing incorrect results. In one case, Black Hawk County, delegates for Bernie Sanders were mistakenly given to Deval Patrick.
We go now to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where we’re joined by Chris Schwartz. He’s the chair of the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors, the state co-chair for Bernie 2020. He’s also the state director of Americans for Democratic Action.
Chris Schwartz, welcome to Democracy Now! Why don’t you just — this is such a confusing story about what’s taking place in Iowa, still so unclear, so much secrecy. Maybe the word “shadow” is appropriate here. Take us through what has taken place so far in Iowa.
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Thank you, Amy. It’s an honor to be here with Democracy Now! here today.
And so, caucus night, things seemed to be going relatively smoothly in my very diverse precinct in Waterloo, which is the most diverse city in the state of Iowa. We were in and out of our caucus site in less than an hour and left feeling good, like, “Hey, this thing ran smoothly. We’re going to know results tonight.” And then the hours just went on and on and on, and didn’t have a sense of what was going on, then finding out that the app wasn’t working for reporting. And then they didn’t have the backup phone lines operating with enough people. And we were finding out that precinct chairs, who were all volunteers, who did a pretty good job of running their sites, were just waiting on hold for hours and hours and hours —
AMY GOODMAN: Had you practiced before the day of —
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: — and finally giving up and going to bed.
AMY GOODMAN: — the caucus, Chris? Had you practiced? Had you ever seen this app? Had people tried to put some information in to see if it would register?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: No, I had never seen the app. Only people that were precinct chairs running it had access. And it’s my understanding that most of them just saw it just the weekend before. Some of them were trying to download the app at the actual caucus site that night. And so, there had not been enough of a practice run.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Chris, it seems extraordinary, given the stakes in this election, that Democrats would take a risk of this sort by trying an app that hadn’t even been tested. And you say that only precinct chairs saw it, and that, too, just the weekend before.
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yeah, no, it was a pretty, pretty remarkable thing. And, you know, sometimes you’re recruiting precinct chairs up to the last minute to run these caucus sites. So, to think that they could be trained on this new technology, there really should have been some other kind of dry run to see if that was a route that was worthy of going for the Iowa caucuses.
AMY GOODMAN: So, keep going. So the hours drag out.
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: The app doesn’t work. How do you get the Black Hawk County caucus information —
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: — to central command or whoever it is that is counting this up?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yeah, so the hours are going on. It was about 2:00 on Tuesday. I had gotten an email from our county party secretary, just letting me know that Sanders won in a big, sizable margin Black Hawk County, and he knew that I would want to have that information. About an hour later, I went down to our county party office to volunteer and help stuff the envelopes of materials that get sent on to the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines, at which point I was shown the breakdown of what the first round of voting and what the final delegate count would be for our county convention, at which point it showed a good almost thousand-vote lead in that first round for Senator Sanders, something that increased when you went even to the second round of viability. And so, this was at about 2:00 that day I knew what was going on, that we had won Black Hawk County really big. But it still wasn’t included in that first initial round of 64% of precincts that was released. And I was getting concerned. Nobody in our county party understood why those numbers weren’t included.
AMY GOODMAN: Because you had reported them.
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: And so, finally, that evening, I reached out to Troy Price, the state chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, and asked, you know, “What is the process that this needs to go through to get released?” you know, trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, trying to understand what their process was they were going through. And I just heard crickets. I heard nothing back, when he’s usually been very responsive to me on things. And so, finally, the next day, I reached out again. I said, “Hey, you know, I’m still waiting on this stuff.”
And then I just like was feeling guilty that I knew the results for our county, but the constituents that I represent didn’t — the volunteers of all these different campaigns, the volunteers that ran these caucus sites and worked really hard to do it, all the people that came in from across the country to get out the vote. We had 40 people staying at our house that weekend doing get-out-the-vote vote efforts. And these people had a right to know what the results of their work was. And so, we tweeted it out. I was actually driving, so my fiancé Logan was handling my phone, and I just told him what to tweet out.
And we put the results out there on Twitter and Facebook, apparently just at the same time that the Iowa Democratic Party was releasing another round of results, to find out that they had given all these Bernie Sanders delegates in Black Hawk County to Deval Patrick. Deval Patrick — and it shouldn’t even come as a surprise to Deval Patrick himself — didn’t have any support in Black Hawk County that evening. And so, we’re just finding out that as we were putting out these results, they were putting out results that are totally contrary. And I think it forced them to immediately walk back what they had put out.
AMY GOODMAN: So, to be clear —
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: And so, it really questioned that —
AMY GOODMAN: To be clear, Chris —
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: You know, it’s taking so long to get these results out, yet they release them, and then they still get it wrong. You know, what is going on? What is the process? Nobody is being told this. I’m a member of the Democratic Party. I’m an elected official in the state. I still can’t even get my answers, you know, answered.
AMY GOODMAN: So, to be clear, Chris, I mean, we got this information because you posted it. Black Hawk County — Black Hawk County caucus results: Sanders, 2,149 votes, that’s 155 county delegates; Buttigieg, 1,578 votes, that’s 111 county delegates. So, that’s like a 44-county-delegate lead for Sanders. And you had given it to them early. It’s not that they didn’t have yours, that you weren’t able to get through. When he finally got through, you then saw results after results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party, but Black Hawk County was not included. And then you saw it was counted as the former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick’s votes?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yeah. At first, things were not being included. And then, when they finally were included, they had all these precincts going to Deval Patrick, which just didn’t make any sense. You know, like I said, my caucus was done in under an hour. And it took almost 48 hours for the Iowa Democratic Party to finally report those results correctly.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, in our lede, we talked about a number of places now predicting that actually Bernie Sanders — I mean, it’s a virtual tie between him and Buttigieg now, but could pull ahead because of the satellite caucuses. Now, if you could explain? This is such an obscure process, that people in this country, I don’t think, even understand.
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Maybe even in Iowa. Satellite caucuses take place in Iowa, in the United States and outside, around the world, for the Iowa caucus?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yes. So, the satellite caucuses were a new thing this year, one of the reforms to try and make the caucuses more accessible, because as most people looking at this, the caucus is — there’s a hurdle to accessibility, whether you’re disabled or a working person who can’t get off work to come out and participate for a one-hour or two-hour, three-hour-long process. And so, they at first proposed doing a virtual caucus. That was shut down. And so they decided to do these satellite caucuses, that were geared — held in union halls. There were some satellite caucuses that were geared for persons with disabilities. There were satellite caucuses that were Spanish-language.
And it’s my understanding that we’re waiting on a lot of them in the — that were located in the 1st Congressional District in eastern Iowa. And Bernie Sanders was very strong at all of those. I’m hearing that Pete Buttigieg was not viable at a number of those satellite caucus sites. So I think that it’s going to be very interesting to see if that tips the scales here when we get those results. But what’s clear to me is that more Iowans came out and supported Bernie Sanders on caucus night. And so, if there’s such difficulty figuring out the accuracy of the delegates and what the state delegate equivalents are and what that proper equation is, then let’s just go with the popular vote. And that just clearly shows that Bernie Sanders had the most amount of support in Iowa on caucus night.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Chris, could you explain, before we conclude, why is it that a new app was introduced in the first place? I mean, were there difficulties or problems with the app that was used during the Iowa caucus in 2016? What was the justification given for the introduction of an app that was not tested?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yes, it’s a very good question. So, there was no app used in 2016. I was someone who ran my caucus site as the precinct chair in 2016, and we just phoned in our results. There were enough people answering the phone that night. I got through right away and really had had no issues. And so, that’s why — you know, it was very close that night, and that’s why I believe it went late into night, because it was coming down so close between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. But we still knew it within hours of the end of the caucus night, because we were using the old standard system of phoning in your results and then dropping off your packet at your county party headquarters. And then that’s all sent to Des Moines so that the record is there. And I think this — I just don’t understand why, if the app wasn’t working, why we didn’t have enough people operating those phone systems.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m looking at a piece in The Intercept. “A person with knowledge of the company’s culture” — talking about Shadow, the app creator — “who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, shared communications showing that top officials at the company regularly expressed hostility to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s supporters. McGowan is married to Michael Halle” — now, McGowan is the head of ACRONYM, which owns Shadow, and McGowan, Tara McGowan, is married to Michael Halle, or Halle, H-A-L-L-E — “a senior strategist with the Buttigieg campaign. There is no evidence any preference of candidates had any effect on the coding issue that is stalling the Iowa results.” But as we wrap up, Chris, if you can talk about the significance of all of this? And, you know, this has certainly opened the discussion again whether Iowa should be first. You talked about Black Hawk County and Waterloo being the most diverse area of Iowa, but the fact is, Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest states in the country, are determining so much of, well, who could be president in 2021.
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Well, I would — you know, I think there’s a lot of information developing about the app that is still unclear. One thing that is clear to me is that the decision wasn’t made by the entire State Central Committee of the Democratic Party, and those are the folks that the party elects to represent us and decide the direction of the state party. I guess it was a decision of an operations subcommittee. And even folks on the State Central Committee that were questioning the use of this app, whether it was secure and whether we had the proper backups in place, I’m being told by those State Central Committee members that those voices were quelled.
I do certainly think — I mean, there are pluses and minuses of the Iowa caucus. You know, a plus of being in a small state like Iowa is that the community organizing still matters in this, versus just being a big media market game. But if I could wave my magic wand, I would probably just have us do a primary all on the same day as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. And then you’ve got a really great cross-section of America. You have rural states, you have more urban areas, you have much more diversity that reflects the melting pot that is America, all in states there where community organizing and mobilization would still matter. And so, that would be what I would tell the DNC: Let’s move to a primary that’s held in those four states all on the same day, when this is up next.
AMY GOODMAN: I think also people would not be aware in the country that Bernie Sanders, I mean, now in a virtual tie with Buttigieg — they’re 0.1% apart on the delegate equivalents, as you talk about it in Iowa, but thousands of popular votes ahead, right? At this point, 2,500?
CHRIS SCHWARTZ: Absolutely. So, it is very clear that Bernie Sanders had the most support of Iowans on caucus night. And so, I think that’s what people should be looking at around the country, is that this movement came out here in Iowa. In my own precinct, it was very, very diverse support of young black and brown and queer and straight people coming together to support Sanders. And that’s what our coalition looks like all across this country. And I believe there’s a movement that is ready to elect Sanders president, that is going to have really great momentum going off of these early victories in Iowa. And I predict we’re going to do very well in New Hampshire on Tuesday.
AMY GOODMAN: Chris Schwartz, I want to thank you for being with us, chair of the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors, the state co-chair for Bernie 2020, as well as state director of Americans for Democratic Action, speaking to us from Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, what has happened to hundreds of Salvadorans who were deported from the United States? A new report is out. We’re going to be talking about that tomorrow. But today, we’re going to talk about the National Archives. You heard about the changing of the photographs of the 2017 march, Women’s March. Well, now there’s a new story. What else is being erased? For example, ICE records. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “American Me” by Masta Ace and Marco Polo. Yesterday would have been Trayvon Martin’s 25th birthday.


democracynow--2020-02-06--Historian: With Impeachment Acquittal, the GOP Has Given Trump a Blank Check to Do Anything He Wants

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : The Senate has acquitted President Trump of two impeachment charges in just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history .
Trump was accused of abusing power and obstructing Congress to aid his re-election campaign by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presided over Wednesday ’ s vote .
AMY GOODMAN : Every Democratic senator voted to remove President Trump from office , but they were joined by one Republican , Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeaching Trump on one count : abuse of power .
Senator Romney became the first senator to ever vote against his own party ’ s president in an impeachment trial .
He spoke on the Senate floor prior to his vote .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Senator Mitt Romney went on to describe how he came to his decision .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : President Trump responded on Twitter by hailing the acquittal vote as , quote , “ the country ’ s Victory ” and described the impeachment effort as a hoax .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a secret Democratic asset .
Donald Trump Jr. called for Romney to be expelled from the Republican Party .
While the impeachment trial is over , the probe of President Trump ’ s actions could continue .
On Wednesday , House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler said the House will likely subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton .
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about President Trump ’ s acquittal , we ’ re joined by Manisha Sinha , professor of American history at University of Connecticut , fellow at the Radcliffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Slave ’ s Cause : A History of Abolition .
Professor Sinha , welcome back to Democracy Now !
First , respond to the acquittal .
This was a historic day , only the third time in U.S. history a Senate impeachment trial was held .
MANISHA SINHA : Yes , indeed , it was .
Trump may think of this as , you know , having escaped , being acquitted , even though he remains impeached by the House .
I do think , though , despite the acquittal , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been around this president ever since his election — the largest popular vote loss , accusations of Russian meddling , squeaking into the office through the Electoral College , demeaning the office by his behavior , flouting the rule of law — what I think is that this impeachment , despite the acquittal , reinforces that air of illegitimacy around Trump , no matter how much he has been grandstanding in the State of the Union and the ways in which an overwhelming majority of the Senate GOP has basically given him a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Professor Sinha , if you could talk about the significance of Mitt Romney voting against his party ?
He was the first senator to do so in an impeachment trial .
MANISHA SINHA : I do think that Mitt Romney is a true profile in courage .
Mike Pence and the Republicans have been hailing a corrupt Republican senator from the 19th century , who was bribed into acquitting Johnson , as a profile in courage .
But really , it was Mitt Romney .
I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics .
As a resident of Massachusetts , I regularly voted against him , even though he was very popular .
And I certainly voted against him when he was running against Barack Obama in 2012 .
But his speech yesterday struck me as historic , both in the ways in which he evoked his oath of office to the Constitution but also the ways in which he evoked his Mormon faith , his religiosity , as moving him to do the right thing .
As a historian of abolition , I also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney will be looked on very kindly by history .
And I think it is mind-boggling that Trump called him a Democratic asset .
I mean , this man was the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 .
It just goes to show how much of its political and moral mooring the current GOP and its leader , Trump , in the White House has lost .
AMY GOODMAN : I ’ d like to turn to a contrast to Senator Romney , and that ’ s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
She called Trump ’ s behavior shameful but said she ’ d vote to acquit him .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Alaska Republican Senator Murkowski .
In the midst of this trial , the questions were : What would Murkowski , Senator Collins of Maine , Lamar Alexander of Tennessee — Romney was pretty clear from the beginning how he felt — do ?
Manisha Sinha , professor of America history at University of Connecticut , respond to what she says and how the Republicans made this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and evidence and also to eventually acquit Trump was deeply disappointing .
She had been very courageous in voting against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh , one of the few Republicans who had the gumption to do that .
So , one was expecting better things from her .
And her statement afterwards , saying that Congress had failed , was actually somewhat laughable , because , in fact , she and the Senate GOP had failed in this entire process .
So I was deeply disappointed by Senator Murkowski .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate majority leader , wields a lot of power .
He also has a lot of moneys that go into the re-election campaigns of the senators .
They are also , we hear from an op-ed by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio , extremely fearful of Trump .
Now , that really is a step toward authoritarianism .
When you start fearing the great leader , when you do not act on your principles , when you do not act as a senator of the United States following the rules and procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a very scary time for American democracy .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , Professor Sinha , I mean , you ’ re right about that , because you think of what President Trump ’ s response was to Senator Romney .
I mean , within hours , he posted a video on Twitter calling him a secret Democratic asset .
MANISHA SINHA : Exactly .
Trump is known to go after his enemies , even his friends who disagree with him .
And what ’ s scary is that people start getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the target of credible death threats .
This should not be happening in a country that is governed by the rule of law and by democratic norms .
We are not going to slip into 1930s Germany , where people are being intimidated by words and then by violence .
I think we are not there yet , but we are certainly witnessing the kinds of authoritarian behavior and words , that was unthinkable in the United States in its recent past , that you see amongst tin-pot dictators all over the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murkowski ’ s path to the Senate was quite astounding .
She actually won in Alaska on a write-in — she had lost the Republican primary , and she won as a write-in , running against a Republican and Democrat .
But I want to turn now to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , speaking to Fox News Wednesday .
AMY GOODMAN : So , let ’ s talk about the role of Mitch McConnell , who proudly said he would not be an impartial juror , that he would coordinate everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were many who were saying maybe the Republicans will break ranks and ultimately call for witnesses , many others said , no , McConnell ’ s not going to lose control of his Republican majority .
If you could comment , Professor Sinha , on both the power and the role of the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and also of Chief Roberts , the chief justice of the United States , who presided over the impeachment trial ?
MANISHA SINHA : So , starting with McConnell , I think here is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
He began with blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland , and now he behaves in such a venal and such a unprincipled partisan manner .
In fact , it ’ s somewhat laughable that they keep calling this a partisan impeachment .
There ’ s nothing more partisan than the way in which Mitch McConnell has presided over the Senate .
He and his fellow senator from Kentucky are doing great damage to that great state .
I can say that they follow in the footsteps of Garrett Davis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Kentucky , who was a Johnson acolyte and a complete racist .
I do hope that they don ’ t continue on this path , but it ’ s quite likely that Mitch McConnell would be pretty shameless in putting forward the agenda of the Republican Party , no matter the damage that it does to the Senate , to our democratic institutions , to the rule of law .
It is quite clear that they want Trump to be vindicated as their party candidate under any circumstances .
And Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump if indeed he shot someone on Fifth Avenue .
Going on to senator — sorry , Chief Justice Roberts , Chief Justice Roberts simply presided over this trial .
The best thing that he did was not to read Senator Rand Paul ’ s question that outed the whistleblower .
That did not deter Senator Paul , who calls himself a libertarian but really has behaved like an authoritarian .
He read out the whistleblower ’ s name in his speech .
Now , there was some talk that the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to Chief Justice Roberts and ask him to intervene and allow for witnesses and evidence to come into the impeachment trial .
That did not happen .
And I suspect that it did not happen because they sounded him out and he made it quite clear that he would not intervene .
And instead of embarrassing him publicly by making that motion , they decided to just let it go .
Now , here are Democrats upholding the integrity and the independence of the federal judiciary , of the Supreme Court of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down that route , as was suggested by Senator Elizabeth Warren ’ s question .
And there are the Republicans willing to tear down anything — anything — standing in their way , as long as they can get Trump re-elected .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , Professor Sinha , very quickly , before we conclude , if you could talk about what you believe the longer-term effects of this drawn-out impeachment trial will be on the American public and , in particular , on Trump ’ s supporters ?
Just prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gallup poll found that Trump ’ s job approval rating was at 49 % , which is the highest it ’ s been since he took office .
MANISHA SINHA : Well , you know , polls come and go , and it would be interesting to see who conducted the poll and how it was conducted .
As a historian , I tend to take all these things with a pinch of salt , and it ’ s just literally a snapshot in time .
All the polls predicted that Trump would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends up winning the Electoral College .
I disagree with Senator McConnell .
I think Trump will be damaged goods , that this impeachment , the ongoing investigation , the Bolton revelations , as they come out , will eventually swing the pendulum against Trump .
I don ’ t think this is good for Trump at all .
I think the entire impeachment process revealed not just the corruption that everyone knows about , not just , you know , the kind of behavior that demeans his office that everyone knows about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was willing to sacrifice national interest and security — something that the Republicans actually used to value — for personal gain .
This is not even for his private enrichment .
You know , he ’ s been flouting the emoluments clause .
He and his family have been flouting the emoluments clause of the Constitution by personally enriching themselves after his election to the presidency .
But this is actually even worse than that kind of crude corruption .
This is literally playing a game with the country ’ s security , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that , I think , is extremely troubling .
I think that that will eventually penetrate .
You know , the Republicans today remind me a lot of the Democrats in the 1850s .
And remember , you have to simply flip parties ’ ideological roles when you talk about the 19th century , because the Republican Party was the liberal , progressive party of anti-slavery and big government , and the Democratic Party had become the party of slavery , white supremacy and states ’ rights .
You know , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted egregious laws protecting slavery , because they had a foolproof majority in Congress , and many times they had the — in fact , most of the times they had the presidency .
And then , of course , they went down to a deep defeat , and they were able , eventually , to reinvent themselves in the Progressive Era , the New Deal era and finally with civil rights .
Will the current GOP be able to do that ?
I doubt it .
I think they have adopted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let us see how far that gets them .
AMY GOODMAN : We want to thank you so much for being with us , Manisha Sinha , professor of American history at the University of Connecticut , fellow at Radcliffe Institute at Harvard University , speaking to us from the Harvard Kennedy School , author of The Slave ’ s Cause : A History of Abolition , where she goes into the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson .
She wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times headlined “ Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll link to that at democracynow.org .
This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , we go to Iowa .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Senate has acquitted President Trump of two impeachment charges in just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. Trump was accused of abusing power and obstructing Congress to aid his re-election campaign by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presided over Wednesday’s vote.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: The presiding officer directs judgment to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the Senate as follows. The Senate, having tried Donald John Trump, president of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles.
AMY GOODMAN: Every Democratic senator voted to remove President Trump from office, but they were joined by one Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who supported impeaching Trump on one count: abuse of power. Senator Romney became the first senator to ever vote against his own party’s president in an impeachment trial. He spoke on the Senate floor prior to his vote.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY: The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am.
AMY GOODMAN: Romney chokes up.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY: I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Senator Mitt Romney went on to describe how he came to his decision.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY: So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did. The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: President Trump responded on Twitter by hailing the acquittal vote as, quote, “the country’s Victory” and described the impeachment effort as a hoax. He also tweeted a video claiming Mitt Romney was a secret Democratic asset. Donald Trump Jr. called for Romney to be expelled from the Republican Party.
While the impeachment trial is over, the probe of President Trump’s actions could continue. On Wednesday, House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler said the House will likely subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about President Trump’s acquittal, we’re joined by Manisha Sinha, professor of American history at University of Connecticut, fellow at the Radcliffe Institute at Harvard University, author of The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition.
Professor Sinha, welcome back to Democracy Now! First, respond to the acquittal. This was a historic day, only the third time in U.S. history a Senate impeachment trial was held.
MANISHA SINHA: Yes, indeed, it was. Trump may think of this as, you know, having escaped, being acquitted, even though he remains impeached by the House. I do think, though, despite the acquittal, that the whiff of illegitimacy that has always been around this president ever since his election — the largest popular vote loss, accusations of Russian meddling, squeaking into the office through the Electoral College, demeaning the office by his behavior, flouting the rule of law — what I think is that this impeachment, despite the acquittal, reinforces that air of illegitimacy around Trump, no matter how much he has been grandstanding in the State of the Union and the ways in which an overwhelming majority of the Senate GOP has basically given him a blank check to do anything he wants.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Sinha, if you could talk about the significance of Mitt Romney voting against his party? He was the first senator to do so in an impeachment trial.
MANISHA SINHA: I do think that Mitt Romney is a true profile in courage. Mike Pence and the Republicans have been hailing a corrupt Republican senator from the 19th century, who was bribed into acquitting Johnson, as a profile in courage. But really, it was Mitt Romney. I do not agree with Senator Romney’s politics. As a resident of Massachusetts, I regularly voted against him, even though he was very popular. And I certainly voted against him when he was running against Barack Obama in 2012.
But his speech yesterday struck me as historic, both in the ways in which he evoked his oath of office to the Constitution but also the ways in which he evoked his Mormon faith, his religiosity, as moving him to do the right thing. As a historian of abolition, I also appreciated that. I do think that Mitt Romney will be looked on very kindly by history. And I think it is mind-boggling that Trump called him a Democratic asset. I mean, this man was the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. It just goes to show how much of its political and moral mooring the current GOP and its leader, Trump, in the White House has lost.
AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to turn to a contrast to Senator Romney, and that’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska speaking on the Senate floor earlier this week. She called Trump’s behavior shameful but said she’d vote to acquit him.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI: The president’s behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation. The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and the honor of the office, not just for himself, but for all future presidents. Degrading the office by actions or even name calling weakens it for future presidents, and it weakens our country. … The response to the president’s behavior is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot. The House could have pursued censure and not immediately jumped to the remedy of last resort. I cannot vote to convict.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Alaska Republican Senator Murkowski. In the midst of this trial, the questions were: What would Murkowski, Senator Collins of Maine, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee — Romney was pretty clear from the beginning how he felt — do? Manisha Sinha, professor of America history at University of Connecticut, respond to what she says and how the Republicans made this decision to acquit.
MANISHA SINHA: I thought Professor [sic] Murkowski’s decision to vote against witnesses —
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Murkowski.
MANISHA SINHA: — and evidence and also to eventually acquit Trump was deeply disappointing. She had been very courageous in voting against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, one of the few Republicans who had the gumption to do that. So, one was expecting better things from her. And her statement afterwards, saying that Congress had failed, was actually somewhat laughable, because, in fact, she and the Senate GOP had failed in this entire process. So I was deeply disappointed by Senator Murkowski.
I do know that Mitch McConnell, as the Senate majority leader, wields a lot of power. He also has a lot of moneys that go into the re-election campaigns of the senators. They are also, we hear from an op-ed by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, extremely fearful of Trump. Now, that really is a step toward authoritarianism. When you start fearing the great leader, when you do not act on your principles, when you do not act as a senator of the United States following the rules and procedures of democratic governance, I think that is a very scary time for American democracy.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Professor Sinha, I mean, you’re right about that, because you think of what President Trump’s response was to Senator Romney. I mean, within hours, he posted a video on Twitter calling him a secret Democratic asset.
MANISHA SINHA: Exactly. Trump is known to go after his enemies, even his friends who disagree with him. And what’s scary is that people start getting death threats. Representative Schiff has been the target of credible death threats. This should not be happening in a country that is governed by the rule of law and by democratic norms. We are not going to slip into 1930s Germany, where people are being intimidated by words and then by violence. I think we are not there yet, but we are certainly witnessing the kinds of authoritarian behavior and words, that was unthinkable in the United States in its recent past, that you see amongst tin-pot dictators all over the world.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Murkowski’s path to the Senate was quite astounding. She actually won in Alaska on a write-in — she had lost the Republican primary, and she won as a write-in, running against a Republican and Democrat. But I want to turn now to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking to Fox News Wednesday.
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL: The most aggressive thing you can do to any president is to try to impeach them. And they did it, on a party-line vote. And you could best describe it as Trump derangement syndrome. In other words, whatever he’s for, they are just — have a Pavlovian negative response to it almost immediately. … This was a thoroughly political maneuver. If it was, it was stupid. It backfired. The president’s got the best numbers he’s had since he’s been in office. My members who were in tough races are all looking at better numbers than they were before impeachment started. So, if this was all about the November election, it seems to me we can conclude, at least in the short term here, this was a colossal political mistake.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about the role of Mitch McConnell, who proudly said he would not be an impartial juror, that he would coordinate everything with the White House. When there were many who were saying maybe the Republicans will break ranks and ultimately call for witnesses, many others said, no, McConnell’s not going to lose control of his Republican majority. If you could comment, Professor Sinha, on both the power and the role of the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and also of Chief Roberts, the chief justice of the United States, who presided over the impeachment trial?
MANISHA SINHA: So, starting with McConnell, I think here is a Senate majority leader who has completely broken the Senate. He began with blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland, and now he behaves in such a venal and such a unprincipled partisan manner. In fact, it’s somewhat laughable that they keep calling this a partisan impeachment. There’s nothing more partisan than the way in which Mitch McConnell has presided over the Senate. He and his fellow senator from Kentucky are doing great damage to that great state. I can say that they follow in the footsteps of Garrett Davis, the representative and, later, senator from Kentucky, who was a Johnson acolyte and a complete racist. I do hope that they don’t continue on this path, but it’s quite likely that Mitch McConnell would be pretty shameless in putting forward the agenda of the Republican Party, no matter the damage that it does to the Senate, to our democratic institutions, to the rule of law. It is quite clear that they want Trump to be vindicated as their party candidate under any circumstances. And Mitch McConnell would be the first one to defend Donald Trump if indeed he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Going on to senator — sorry, Chief Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts simply presided over this trial. The best thing that he did was not to read Senator Rand Paul’s question that outed the whistleblower. That did not deter Senator Paul, who calls himself a libertarian but really has behaved like an authoritarian. He read out the whistleblower’s name in his speech. Now, there was some talk that the Democrats, the House managers, would indeed go to Chief Justice Roberts and ask him to intervene and allow for witnesses and evidence to come into the impeachment trial. That did not happen. And I suspect that it did not happen because they sounded him out and he made it quite clear that he would not intervene. And instead of embarrassing him publicly by making that motion, they decided to just let it go. Now, here are Democrats upholding the integrity and the independence of the federal judiciary, of the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts, in not going down that route, as was suggested by Senator Elizabeth Warren’s question. And there are the Republicans willing to tear down anything — anything — standing in their way, as long as they can get Trump re-elected.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Professor Sinha, very quickly, before we conclude, if you could talk about what you believe the longer-term effects of this drawn-out impeachment trial will be on the American public and, in particular, on Trump’s supporters? Just prior to the Senate vote on Wednesday, a Gallup poll found that Trump’s job approval rating was at 49%, which is the highest it’s been since he took office.
MANISHA SINHA: Well, you know, polls come and go, and it would be interesting to see who conducted the poll and how it was conducted. As a historian, I tend to take all these things with a pinch of salt, and it’s just literally a snapshot in time. All the polls predicted that Trump would be defeated, and in fact he ends up winning the Electoral College.
I disagree with Senator McConnell. I think Trump will be damaged goods, that this impeachment, the ongoing investigation, the Bolton revelations, as they come out, will eventually swing the pendulum against Trump. I don’t think this is good for Trump at all. I think the entire impeachment process revealed not just the corruption that everyone knows about, not just, you know, the kind of behavior that demeans his office that everyone knows about, but it revealed a person who was willing to sacrifice national interest and security — something that the Republicans actually used to value — for personal gain. This is not even for his private enrichment. You know, he’s been flouting the emoluments clause. He and his family have been flouting the emoluments clause of the Constitution by personally enriching themselves after his election to the presidency. But this is actually even worse than that kind of crude corruption. This is literally playing a game with the country’s security, with the country’s democracy. And that, I think, is extremely troubling. I think that that will eventually penetrate.
You know, the Republicans today remind me a lot of the Democrats in the 1850s. And remember, you have to simply flip parties’ ideological roles when you talk about the 19th century, because the Republican Party was the liberal, progressive party of anti-slavery and big government, and the Democratic Party had become the party of slavery, white supremacy and states’ rights. You know, they just voted along partisan lines. They voted egregious laws protecting slavery, because they had a foolproof majority in Congress, and many times they had the — in fact, most of the times they had the presidency. And then, of course, they went down to a deep defeat, and they were able, eventually, to reinvent themselves in the Progressive Era, the New Deal era and finally with civil rights. Will the current GOP be able to do that? I doubt it. I think they have adopted a strategy of sinking and swimming with Trump. Let us see how far that gets them.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much for being with us, Manisha Sinha, professor of American history at the University of Connecticut, fellow at Radcliffe Institute at Harvard University, speaking to us from the Harvard Kennedy School, author of The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition, where she goes into the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. She wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times headlined “Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor.” We’ll link to that at democracynow.org.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go to Iowa. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-02-06--Headlines for February  6, 2020

Headlines for February  6, 2020

The U.S. Senate has acquitted President Trump of two impeachment charges in just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history .
Trump was accused of abusing power and obstructing Congress to aid his re-election campaign by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden .
Every Democratic senator voted to remove President Trump from office , but they were joined by just one Republican , Senator Mitt Romney of Utah , who supported impeaching Trump on one count : abuse of power .
Romney became the first senator to ever vote against his own party ’ s president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke on the Senate floor prior to his vote .
Sen. Mitt Romney : “ The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival .
The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so .
The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders .
The president ’ s purpose was personal and political .
Accordingly , the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.
” President Trump responded on Twitter by hailing the vote as “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described the impeachment effort as a hoax and tweeted a video claiming Mitt Romney was a secret Democratic asset .

The U.S. Senate has acquitted President Trump of two impeachment charges in just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. Trump was accused of abusing power and obstructing Congress to aid his re-election campaign by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. Every Democratic senator voted to remove President Trump from office, but they were joined by just one Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who supported impeaching Trump on one count: abuse of power. Romney became the first senator to ever vote against his own party’s president in an impeachment trial. Senator Romney spoke on the Senate floor prior to his vote.
Sen. Mitt Romney: “The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”
President Trump responded on Twitter by hailing the vote as “the country’s Victory.” He also described the impeachment effort as a hoax and tweeted a video claiming Mitt Romney was a secret Democratic asset.


democracynow--2020-02-07--Human Rights Watch: 200 Salvadoran Asylum Seekers Killed, Raped or Tortured After U.S. Deportation

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
We end today ’ s show looking at a shocking new report that says at least 200 Salvadoran asylum seekers were either killed , raped or tortured after being deported from the United States back to Salvador .
Human Rights Watch found 138 people deported to El Salvador were murdered by gang members , police , soldiers , death squads or ex-partners between 2013 and ’ 19 .
The report says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years after being deported , by the same perpetrators the asylum seekers had fled from .
The Human Rights Watch report is titled “ Deported to Danger : United States Deportation Policies Expose Salvadorans to Death and Abuse.
” For more , we ’ re joined by Clara Long , senior researcher for Human Rights Watch .
She joins us from Denver .
And from El Salvador , we ’ re joined by a Salvadoran man who was deported back after living in the U.S. for 19 years .
To protect his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call him “ Arturo.
” We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Clara , let ’ s begin with you .
Lay out the findings of this report .
CLARA LONG : Thanks , Amy .
As you ’ ve said , we found over 200 cases of people who were harmed after being deported by the United States to El Salvador .
In most of the cases we identified and investigated , that harm occurred within a year of their return , and some longer .
And in a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of arrival .
What we found is that people who suffered harm had — came from many different categories .
They had lived in the United States for a long period of time and then been deported .
They had fled abusers , domestic violence in El Salvador , and then were returned by the United States and then suffered harm from the same abusers .
Some of them were police officers who fled because of threats from gangs , and then , upon being deported , were killed by the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were people who had been recruited into gangs , fled that recruitment , and , again , suffered — were returned and were killed .
And , you know , what we ’ ve concluded from this research is , these enormous flaws that exist in the U.S. asylum and protection system are causing a huge harm .
We believe the number that we ’ ve identified here to be an undercount .
We describe our methodology for finding these cases , and what comes out of that methodology is that since no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are being murdered or harmed or sexually assaulted , you know , what we ’ ve really been able to identify is it could be just the tip of the iceberg .
AMY GOODMAN : So , this has gone from the Obama years to the Trump years .
And if you could explain that and how now the situation is ?
CLARA LONG : Right .
I mean , anyone who says that they ’ re going to enter into the presidency and roll back everything Trump has done is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has engaged in a dedicated campaign to eviscerate the right to seek asylum in the United States , and that has resulted in an almost closed space for seeking protection .
However , the Trump administration inherited from the Obama administration a flawed system that did not adequately weigh asylum seekers ’ claims .
And that is borne out in this research .
People who were deported under the Obama administration also did not have an adequate opportunity to get protection for the threats that they faced upon return to El Salvador .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple things .
I mean , one is the way that the system works — the lack of due process , lack of attorneys , these overloaded immigration courts .
But it ’ s also due to U.S. law and the fact that U.S. law is simply too narrow to protect against the range of threats that people face upon return .
And so we recommend that U.S. law should be changed , you know , that we should be not only offering protection to people who qualify on a narrow range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but using the sort of logical standard of : Is someone going to face a real risk of harm if they ’ re returned ?
And if so , no matter what the source of that harm , they should be protected from that .
AMY GOODMAN : Let ’ s turn to Arturo .
He is a Salvadoran national , deported after living in the U.S. 19 years .
Arturo , thank you for joining us .
Explain what happened to you .
ARTURO : Yes .
During my staying in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a crime , which I was trying to appeal it in the court system .
And just as she was mentioning , there is a lack of due process .
And during my process , I was on the appeals , and I served five years in prison .
And by the time I was granted parole because of my behavior , it was thrown out the window , pretty much , because I was not given the right of appealing it to the court .
There were some discrepancies in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that could have helped me in the crime , or at least present my innocence .
And because I was [ inaudible ] hold in the immigration system , the immigration just went , got me in .
They decided not to give me the chance to proceed on these court proceedings , and I have deported back to El Salvador .
AMY GOODMAN : And what have you faced at home ?
ARTURO : There ’ s so many different things that I have faced .
First off , I live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belongs to , you know , one of the gangs .
By me going to a different neighborhood , I face a danger of not coming out of that neighborhood .
The way they do it in here is that when they don ’ t recognize somebody that is from that neighborhood , even if you ’ re visiting family members or anything like such nature , they will stop you .
They will question you : “ Where are you from ?
” They will take your ID by force .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure that you don ’ t have — ARTURO : They might make you disappear .
AMY GOODMAN : Arturo , if you could explain your PTSD diagnosis ?
ARTURO : I left El Salvador during — after the peace agreements , because I grew up in the war .
I went to the United States .
I served in the fire department as a volunteer .
And [ inaudible ] have all these traumas , they kind of got messed up a little bit .
So I got diagnosed with PTSD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into medicine because of all these things that I have seen , not just during the war , but also in the fire department .
AMY GOODMAN : And we should say that when Arturo talks about the war in El Salvador , the history books now reflect , in the 1980s into the '90s , the U.S. supporting the paramilitary death squads and the Salvadoran military , which was responsible for so many deaths in El Salvador .
Clara Long , how typical is Arturo 's story ?
CLARA LONG : Very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find is that — what we found is that people who are deeply rooted in the United States , who have lived there , built homes , families , communities there , are easily identifiable in El Salvador , targets for extortion , sometimes targeted because of any tattoos they may have , no matter what the origin of those tattoos .
And the other thing that ’ s important to underline here is that everyone should have the right to seek asylum , to have a fair hearing on their claims and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have or whatever reasons they have for needing protection are considered .
And that didn ’ t happen for Arturo .
And that , unfortunately , is typical , has been typical .
And under the Trump administration , it ’ s just completely the norm .
AMY GOODMAN : And what are you calling for , in these last 15 seconds ?
CLARA LONG : Immediately , the sort of — the immediate call here needs to be , Congress needs to end the harmful migrant protection protocols , this “ Remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border , that is putting tens of thousands of people in immediate danger and also giving them no chance of a fair shake in their asylum claims .
Over the long term — AMY GOODMAN : Clara Long , we want to thank you so much for being with us , senior researcher , Human Rights Watch .
And Arturo , not his real name , but for fear of reprisal , speaking to us from El Salvador , after being deported from the United States , where he lived for 19 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a paid , year-long news production fellowship .
Go to democracynow.org .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks so much for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. We end today’s show looking at a shocking new report that says at least 200 Salvadoran asylum seekers were either killed, raped or tortured after being deported from the United States back to Salvador. Human Rights Watch found 138 people deported to El Salvador were murdered by gang members, police, soldiers, death squads or ex-partners between 2013 and ’19. The report says most of the victims were killed within two years after being deported, by the same perpetrators the asylum seekers had fled from. The Human Rights Watch report is titled “Deported to Danger: United States Deportation Policies Expose Salvadorans to Death and Abuse.”
For more, we’re joined by Clara Long, senior researcher for Human Rights Watch. She joins us from Denver. And from El Salvador, we’re joined by a Salvadoran man who was deported back after living in the U.S. for 19 years. To protect his identity, he’s asked us to call him “Arturo.”
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Clara, let’s begin with you. Lay out the findings of this report.
CLARA LONG: Thanks, Amy. As you’ve said, we found over 200 cases of people who were harmed after being deported by the United States to El Salvador. In most of the cases we identified and investigated, that harm occurred within a year of their return, and some longer. And in a couple cases, people were killed within a day of arrival.
What we found is that people who suffered harm had — came from many different categories. They had lived in the United States for a long period of time and then been deported. They had fled abusers, domestic violence in El Salvador, and then were returned by the United States and then suffered harm from the same abusers. Some of them were police officers who fled because of threats from gangs, and then, upon being deported, were killed by the same people who had threatened them. Others were people who had been recruited into gangs, fled that recruitment, and, again, suffered — were returned and were killed.
And, you know, what we’ve concluded from this research is, these enormous flaws that exist in the U.S. asylum and protection system are causing a huge harm. We believe the number that we’ve identified here to be an undercount. We describe our methodology for finding these cases, and what comes out of that methodology is that since no government entity tracks whether deportees are among people who are being murdered or harmed or sexually assaulted, you know, what we’ve really been able to identify is it could be just the tip of the iceberg.
AMY GOODMAN: So, this has gone from the Obama years to the Trump years. And if you could explain that and how now the situation is?
CLARA LONG: Right. I mean, anyone who says that they’re going to enter into the presidency and roll back everything Trump has done is not saying enough. The Trump administration has engaged in a dedicated campaign to eviscerate the right to seek asylum in the United States, and that has resulted in an almost closed space for seeking protection. However, the Trump administration inherited from the Obama administration a flawed system that did not adequately weigh asylum seekers’ claims. And that is borne out in this research. People who were deported under the Obama administration also did not have an adequate opportunity to get protection for the threats that they faced upon return to El Salvador.
And that’s due to a couple things. I mean, one is the way that the system works — the lack of due process, lack of attorneys, these overloaded immigration courts. But it’s also due to U.S. law and the fact that U.S. law is simply too narrow to protect against the range of threats that people face upon return. And so we recommend that U.S. law should be changed, you know, that we should be not only offering protection to people who qualify on a narrow range of grounds under the current asylum definition, but using the sort of logical standard of: Is someone going to face a real risk of harm if they’re returned? And if so, no matter what the source of that harm, they should be protected from that.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to Arturo. He is a Salvadoran national, deported after living in the U.S. 19 years. Arturo, thank you for joining us. Explain what happened to you.
ARTURO: Yes. During my staying in the United States, I was found guilty of a crime, which I was trying to appeal it in the court system. And just as she was mentioning, there is a lack of due process. And during my process, I was on the appeals, and I served five years in prison. And by the time I was granted parole because of my behavior, it was thrown out the window, pretty much, because I was not given the right of appealing it to the court. There were some discrepancies in the proceedings. And they withheld evidence, evidence that could have helped me in the crime, or at least present my innocence. And because I was [inaudible] hold in the immigration system, the immigration just went, got me in. They decided not to give me the chance to proceed on these court proceedings, and I have deported back to El Salvador.
AMY GOODMAN: And what have you faced at home?
ARTURO: There’s so many different things that I have faced. First off, I live in a danger neighborhood, where it belongs to, you know, one of the gangs. By me going to a different neighborhood, I face a danger of not coming out of that neighborhood. The way they do it in here is that when they don’t recognize somebody that is from that neighborhood, even if you’re visiting family members or anything like such nature, they will stop you. They will question you: “Where are you from?” They will take your ID by force. They will make you take your clothes, make sure that you don’t have —
AMY GOODMAN: We’re having some trouble hearing Arturo.
ARTURO: They might make you disappear.
AMY GOODMAN: Arturo, if you could explain your PTSD diagnosis?
ARTURO: I left El Salvador during — after the peace agreements, because I grew up in the war. I went to the United States. I served in the fire department as a volunteer. And [inaudible] have all these traumas, they kind of got messed up a little bit. So I got diagnosed with PTSD and stress. So, I was into medicine because of all these things that I have seen, not just during the war, but also in the fire department.
AMY GOODMAN: And we should say that when Arturo talks about the war in El Salvador, the history books now reflect, in the 1980s into the '90s, the U.S. supporting the paramilitary death squads and the Salvadoran military, which was responsible for so many deaths in El Salvador. Clara Long, how typical is Arturo's story?
CLARA LONG: Very typical. You know, what we find is that — what we found is that people who are deeply rooted in the United States, who have lived there, built homes, families, communities there, are easily identifiable in El Salvador, targets for extortion, sometimes targeted because of any tattoos they may have, no matter what the origin of those tattoos. And the other thing that’s important to underline here is that everyone should have the right to seek asylum, to have a fair hearing on their claims and to make sure that whatever arguments they have or whatever reasons they have for needing protection are considered. And that didn’t happen for Arturo. And that, unfortunately, is typical, has been typical. And under the Trump administration, it’s just completely the norm.
AMY GOODMAN: And what are you calling for, in these last 15 seconds?
CLARA LONG: Immediately, the sort of — the immediate call here needs to be, Congress needs to end the harmful migrant protection protocols, this “Remain in Mexico” program along the U.S.-Mexico border, that is putting tens of thousands of people in immediate danger and also giving them no chance of a fair shake in their asylum claims. Over the long term —
AMY GOODMAN: Clara Long, we want to thank you so much for being with us, senior researcher, Human Rights Watch. And Arturo, not his real name, but for fear of reprisal, speaking to us from El Salvador, after being deported from the United States, where he lived for 19 years.
Democracy Now! is accepting applications for a paid, year-long news production fellowship. Go to democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.