democracynow--2020-01-23--"The New Colossus": In New Play, Tim Robbins Tackles Immigration & Xenophobia

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 : President Trump said Wednesday that he would expand his highly controversial travel ban , which already bars citizens from seven mainly Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. Trump made the comment to reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
AMY GOODMAN : Trump ’ s widely condemned travel ban currently bars citizens from Libya , Iran , Somalia , Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from entering the U.S. Trump signed it almost exactly three years ago in one of his first major acts as president , sparking widespread outrage .
Politico reports the expanded ban could implement immigration restrictions on seven more countries : Belarus , Burma , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , Nigeria , Sudan , Tanzania , according to two sources .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , we turn now to an acclaimed actor , director and activist whose recent work has focused on immigration to the United States : Academy Award winner Tim Robbins .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ including The Shawshank Redemption , Mystic River and Dark Waters .
He also wrote and directed the highly acclaimed film Dead Man Walking .
But he ’ s also the director of a new play about immigration called The New Colossus .
The play ’ s title is borrowed from the 1883 Emma Lazarus sonnet which was inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in 1903 .
Here ’ s the play ’ s trailer .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s the trailer for Tim Robbins ’ new play The New Colossus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our New York studio .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you back , Tim .
AMY GOODMAN : So , The New Colossus .
I mean , what we are experiencing now , in addition to this travel ban , pregnant women coming to the United States will have to be tested .
The State Department plans to impose travel restrictions on pregnant women , the Associated Press is reporting , to curb what is known as birth tourism ?
The women who are pregnant , otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to prove they ’ re visiting the U.S. for other reasons than to have their child .
Talk about — TIM ROBBINS : Had someone — a friend of mine passed through the border .
And they were going through her texts and saw that she was being friendly with another woman , said , “ Are you a ” — AMY GOODMAN : Wait , wait , wait .
What do you mean , “ they were going through her texts ” ?
Who ’ s “ they ” ?
AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ROBBINS : In the South .
I don ’ t want to say specifically where .
AMY GOODMAN : So they took her phone , and they ’ re reading her texts .
TIM ROBBINS : Yeah .
And they see a text where she ’ s being friendly with another woman .
They say , “ Are you involved with a lesbian relationship with this woman ?
” I mean , the slippery slope .
You know , when you empower people with ignorance and with this kind of paranoia about everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border that must be trying to take something from us , it ’ s really , you know , denigrating not only to the individuals involved on both sides — both the border guard and the immigrant — but also to our country itself .
It ’ s not what I think of when I think of us as a country that is welcoming .
You know , we started The New Colossus in the Obama years during the Syrian refugee crisis .
And we asked ourselves the questions at The Actors ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ?
Who are we as a theater company ?
And I had 12 actors from various parts of the world , some of whom English was a second language .
And I asked them to write their story , write the story of either their immigration or their parents ’ or grandparents ’ immigration .
And we came up with this story of 12 different people , from 12 different time periods , speaking 12 different languages , telling the story of the arduous journey towards freedom — something that unites us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
I don ’ t think we often think about that .
And in these times , that are so divisive , it ’ s so exciting to be able to go out into the United States and tell this story , because at the end of the play I come out and I say , “ Let ’ s — I want to talk to you , the audience , ” and we start discovering who the audience is .
And first I ask , “ Is there anyone in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indigenous ?
” Some hands go up .
“ What nation ?
” “ Cherokee , ” etc .
Then I ask , “ Is anyone here descended from people that were brought here against their will ?
” African Americans .
“ Do you know where from ?
” “ No.
” “ What year ?
” “ No.
” One of our great original sins that ’ s never been atoned for , robbing an entire people of their history .
And then I ask , “ Are there any immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year did you come ?
From where ?
Immigrants , what year ?
Where from ?
” Some hands come up .
Then I ask , “ Sons or daughters of immigrants or refugees ?
” More hands come up .
“ Where from ?
What year ?
” “ Grandsons , granddaughters of immigrants or refugees ?
” More hands come up .
“ Great-grandsons , ” etc .
The whole crowd , the whole audience .
In our theater in Los Angeles , every day , every time we do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — we put a map up in our lobby , and we have magnetic pins for people to place where they ’ re from in the world .
And in Los Angeles , in our small theater , every time we do the play , the entire world is represented , reflective of who we are as a culture , something that probably you ’ d find nowhere else in the world , which is something unique and fantastic about what it is to be here .
And we think about what — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to really think about what is it , what is this thing that we all share together in this country , this DNA , if you will .
Well , first of all , it ’ s the DNA that said , “ No , I will not tolerate religious oppression .
No , I will not tolerate fascism or famine or Nazism .
I will risk my life to get out of here , because I do not accept it.
” First , that DNA .
And the people that stayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then the DNA of the person that ’ s strong enough to have survived that journey .
And then a journey overseas , over the sea , in boats .
A lot died on the way .
Then , that kind of character that survived once they got here with nothing and then created a future for their family ?
This is our blood .
This is what we are made of .
This is something that is something we share , that I think should be celebrated .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the road to tell this story .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , I want to ask about how it is that conceptions of immigration in the U.S. might have changed .
Last year — over all these decades .
You ’ ve spoken to people , through your play , of several generations , who have come to the U.S. Last year , following condemnation of the Trump administration rule limiting permanent status for low-income immigrants , acting Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli attempted to defend the new policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Statue of Liberty .
That ’ s the poem , of course , that takes your — your play is from , the title of the poem .
This is Cuccinelli speaking to NPR ’ s Rachel Martin last year .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : He later defended his comments in a CNN interview , suggesting Emma Lazarus ’ s poem was written about , quote , “ people coming from Europe.
” NERMEEN SHAIKH : So , if you could respond to this , two points that he makes — first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear , in his view , not to be welcome , and also that initially immigrants to America were , of course , European ?
TIM ROBBINS : Well , first of all , always distrust any person in politics trying to rewrite poetry .
Now , there ’ s a couple of lines they left out : the “ Give me … the wretched refuse of your teeming shore … the homeless.
” Give them to me .
What this is is a story of strength .
It ’ s a poem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are a strong-enough country to accept people that are hurt , that are hurting .
We ’ re strong enough to hold you up .
That ’ s how strong we are as a country .
It ’ s a poem that tells what it is to be compassionate , to be empathetic and to hold power .
I will light “ my lamp beside the golden door !
” I will guide your safe passage into these harbors , you who are — you who are hurt , you who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first of all , every single immigrant has been demonized .
Every wave has been demonized .
I grew up with second-generation Italians and Irish in New York City .
And there was “ The Irish need not apply.
” These are kids that were descended from people that were called the worst epithets , held onto their dignity .
Every immigrant has this similar struggle , this similar story .
This is nothing new .
It ’ s unique now because the differences are being weaponized .
And it ’ s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And this is why we want to tell this story and why we want to hear the audience ’ s stories , to reaffirm who we are , to really tell the story of — you know , the person sitting next to you is probably from somewhere else .
And if you ’ re not an immigrant or refugee , you ’ re not that far removed .
You ’ re a couple generations removed from that .
And we should be holding up these people .
It takes great courage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journey .
It ’ s always been a hero ’ s journey to say no to what you — to something that is violent or oppressive and to risk your life to come here .
We had a matinée out in Los Angeles .
And the map we put up in the lobby — this was the one particular day .
It was a matinée for high school students in Los Angeles .
And the map was predominantly Mexico , Central America and South America .
And we talked that day about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , the demonization of the other .
And one of the children was talking about their parents , and another one was talking about their grandparents .
And we started talking about what — how we look at your parents and how we look at your grandparents .
Let ’ s stop thinking about them the way they want to talk about it , the way they ’ ve been using rhetoric to demonize it , and let ’ s talk about the hero ’ s journey .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage it takes to leave behind your home .
No one wants to leave their home .
Who would want to leave their home ?
There ’ s something in their home that is creating trouble and a danger for their children .
And then to walk 500 miles for a future , this is a noble effort .
This is a hero ’ s journey .
And we have to stop thinking about it in the way that the media is portraying it , and talk about it in mythic terms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , your ancestors .
This is the mythic hero ’ s journey .

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: President Trump said Wednesday that he would expand his highly controversial travel ban, which already bars citizens from seven mainly Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. Trump made the comment to reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to be safe. Our country has to be safe. You see what’s going on in the world. Our country has to be safe. So we have a very strong travel ban, and we’ll be adding a few countries to it.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s widely condemned travel ban currently bars citizens from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Venezuela from entering the U.S. Trump signed it almost exactly three years ago in one of his first major acts as president, sparking widespread outrage. Politico reports the expanded ban could implement immigration restrictions on seven more countries: Belarus, Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, according to two sources.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, we turn now to an acclaimed actor, director and activist whose recent work has focused on immigration to the United States: Academy Award winner Tim Robbins. Tim has starred in many movies, including The Shawshank Redemption, Mystic River and Dark Waters. He also wrote and directed the highly acclaimed film Dead Man Walking. But he’s also the director of a new play about immigration called The New Colossus. The play’s title is borrowed from the 1883 Emma Lazarus sonnet which was inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in 1903. Here’s the play’s trailer.
LY MY DUNG: [played by Stephanie Lee] My name is Li My Dung. I am 25 years old.
MEHMET FATIH TRASH: [played by Onur Alpsen] My name is Mehmet Fatih Trash, and I’m 34 years old.
YETTA ROTHSCHILD: [played by Jeanette Rothschild Horn] My name is Yetta Rothschild, and I’m 68 years old.
GABRIELA MIA GARCIA: [played by Paulette Zubata] Mi nombre es Gabriela Mia Garcia. Yo tengo 23 años.
HOMAYUN DIDEBAN: [played by Pierre Adeli] My name is Homayun Didebanam. I’m 42 years old.
TATYANA IOSIFOVNA BIRGER: [played by Mashka Wolfe] My name is Tatyana Iosifovna Birger. I am 33 years old.
ANNA MARGARET WONG: [played by Kayla Blake] My name is Anna Margaret Wong. I am 9 years old.
MEHMET FATIH TRASH: I was born in Adana, Turkey.
TATYANA IOSIFOVNA BIRGER: I was born in Moscow, in the Soviet Union.
HOMAYUN DIDEBAN: Isfahan, Iran.
LY MY DUNG: Dalat, Vietnam.
YETTA ROTHSCHILD: Stuttgart, Germany.
MIRKO PETKOVIC: [played by Zivko Petkovic] Mokro Polje, Yugoslavia.
GABRIELA MIA GARCIA: Yo vengo de Michoacán, México.
SADIE DUNCAN: [played by Quonta Beasley] Tensas Parish, Louisiana.
ANNA MARGARET WONG: Borneo, Malaysia.
ARANKA MARKUS: [played by Dora Kiss] Budapest, Hungary.
HOMAYUN DIDEBANAM: I’m a refugee in the year 1979.
THE ACTORS’ GANG: [inaudible]
MEHMET FATIH TRASH: I’m a refugee in 2017.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the trailer for Tim Robbins’ new play The New Colossus. He’s joining us now in our New York studio.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you back, Tim.
TIM ROBBINS: It’s great to be back.
AMY GOODMAN: So, The New Colossus. I mean, what we are experiencing now, in addition to this travel ban, pregnant women coming to the United States will have to be tested. The State Department plans to impose travel restrictions on pregnant women, the Associated Press is reporting, to curb what is known as birth tourism? The women who are pregnant, otherwise eligible for U.S. tourist visas, will have to prove they’re visiting the U.S. for other reasons than to have their child. Talk about —
TIM ROBBINS: A slippery slope.
AMY GOODMAN: — The New Colossus.
TIM ROBBINS: Had someone — a friend of mine passed through the border. And they were going through her texts and saw that she was being friendly with another woman, said, “Are you a” —
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean, “they were going through her texts”? Who’s “they”?
TIM ROBBINS: The border control people.
AMY GOODMAN: Where was this?
TIM ROBBINS: In the South. I don’t want to say specifically where.
AMY GOODMAN: So they took her phone, and they’re reading her texts.
TIM ROBBINS: Yeah. And they see a text where she’s being friendly with another woman. They say, “Are you involved with a lesbian relationship with this woman?” I mean, the slippery slope. You know, when you empower people with ignorance and with this kind of paranoia about everyone coming into our country south of the border that must be trying to take something from us, it’s really, you know, denigrating not only to the individuals involved on both sides — both the border guard and the immigrant — but also to our country itself. It’s not what I think of when I think of us as a country that is welcoming.
You know, we started The New Colossus in the Obama years during the Syrian refugee crisis. And we asked ourselves the questions at The Actors’ Gang: Who are we as a country? Who are we as a theater company? And I had 12 actors from various parts of the world, some of whom English was a second language. And I asked them to write their story, write the story of either their immigration or their parents’ or grandparents’ immigration. And we came up with this story of 12 different people, from 12 different time periods, speaking 12 different languages, telling the story of the arduous journey towards freedom — something that unites us, by the way, as a country. I don’t think we often think about that.
And in these times, that are so divisive, it’s so exciting to be able to go out into the United States and tell this story, because at the end of the play I come out and I say, “Let’s — I want to talk to you, the audience,” and we start discovering who the audience is. And first I ask, “Is there anyone in the audience that is indigenous or descended from indigenous?” Some hands go up. “What nation?” “Cherokee,” etc. Then I ask, “Is anyone here descended from people that were brought here against their will?” African Americans. “Do you know where from?” “No.” “What year?” “No.” One of our great original sins that’s never been atoned for, robbing an entire people of their history. And then I ask, “Are there any immigrants or refugees? Any refugees? What year did you come? From where? Immigrants, what year? Where from?” Some hands come up. Then I ask, “Sons or daughters of immigrants or refugees?” More hands come up. “Where from? What year?” “Grandsons, granddaughters of immigrants or refugees?” More hands come up. “Great-grandsons,” etc. The whole crowd, the whole audience. In our theater in Los Angeles, every day, every time we do it —
AMY GOODMAN: This is Actors’ Gang.
TIM ROBBINS: Actors’ Gang — we put a map up in our lobby, and we have magnetic pins for people to place where they’re from in the world. And in Los Angeles, in our small theater, every time we do the play, the entire world is represented, reflective of who we are as a culture, something that probably you’d find nowhere else in the world, which is something unique and fantastic about what it is to be here.
And we think about what — you know, this play has led us to really think about what is it, what is this thing that we all share together in this country, this DNA, if you will. Well, first of all, it’s the DNA that said, “No, I will not tolerate religious oppression. No, I will not tolerate fascism or famine or Nazism. I will risk my life to get out of here, because I do not accept it.” First, that DNA. And the people that stayed behind didn’t make it. And then the DNA of the person that’s strong enough to have survived that journey. And then a journey overseas, over the sea, in boats. A lot died on the way. Then, that kind of character that survived once they got here with nothing and then created a future for their family? This is our blood. This is what we are made of. This is something that is something we share, that I think should be celebrated. And that’s why we’re going out on the road to tell this story.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to ask about how it is that conceptions of immigration in the U.S. might have changed. Last year — over all these decades. You’ve spoken to people, through your play, of several generations, who have come to the U.S. Last year, following condemnation of the Trump administration rule limiting permanent status for low-income immigrants, acting Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli attempted to defend the new policy by rewriting the iconic Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty. That’s the poem, of course, that takes your — your play is from, the title of the poem. This is Cuccinelli speaking to NPR’s Rachel Martin last year.
RACHEL MARTIN: Would you also agree that Emma Lazarus’s words etched on the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor,” are also part of the American ethos?
KEN CUCCINELLI: They certainly are. Give me your tired and your poor, who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge. That plaque was put on the Statue of Liberty at almost the same time as the first public charge law was passed. Very interesting timing.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: He later defended his comments in a CNN interview, suggesting Emma Lazarus’s poem was written about, quote, “people coming from Europe.”
TIM ROBBINS: Wow.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, if you could respond to this, two points that he makes — first of all, low-income immigrants, who appear, in his view, not to be welcome, and also that initially immigrants to America were, of course, European?
TIM ROBBINS: Well, first of all, always distrust any person in politics trying to rewrite poetry.
Now, there’s a couple of lines they left out: the “Give me … the wretched refuse of your teeming shore … the homeless.” Give them to me. What this is is a story of strength. It’s a poem of strength. It’s saying we are a strong-enough country to accept people that are hurt, that are hurting. We’re strong enough to hold you up. That’s how strong we are as a country. It’s a poem that tells what it is to be compassionate, to be empathetic and to hold power. I will light “my lamp beside the golden door!” I will guide your safe passage into these harbors, you who are — you who are hurt, you who are hurting.
This rewriting of history, first of all, every single immigrant has been demonized. Every wave has been demonized. I grew up with second-generation Italians and Irish in New York City. And there was “The Irish need not apply.” These are kids that were descended from people that were called the worst epithets, held onto their dignity. Every immigrant has this similar struggle, this similar story. This is nothing new. It’s unique now because the differences are being weaponized. And it’s, I think, tragic for our country.
And this is why we want to tell this story and why we want to hear the audience’s stories, to reaffirm who we are, to really tell the story of — you know, the person sitting next to you is probably from somewhere else. And if you’re not an immigrant or refugee, you’re not that far removed. You’re a couple generations removed from that. And we should be holding up these people. It takes great courage. This is a hero’s journey. It’s always been a hero’s journey to say no to what you — to something that is violent or oppressive and to risk your life to come here.
We had a matinée out in Los Angeles. And the map we put up in the lobby — this was the one particular day. It was a matinée for high school students in Los Angeles. And the map was predominantly Mexico, Central America and South America. And we talked that day about the rhetoric that is going around about immigration right now, the demonization of the other. And one of the children was talking about their parents, and another one was talking about their grandparents. And we started talking about what — how we look at your parents and how we look at your grandparents. Let’s stop thinking about them the way they want to talk about it, the way they’ve been using rhetoric to demonize it, and let’s talk about the hero’s journey. Let’s talk about the mythic journey, the courage it takes to leave behind your home. No one wants to leave their home. Who would want to leave their home? There’s something in their home that is creating trouble and a danger for their children. And then to walk 500 miles for a future, this is a noble effort. This is a hero’s journey. And we have to stop thinking about it in the way that the media is portraying it, and talk about it in mythic terms. This is our history, my ancestors, your ancestors. This is the mythic hero’s journey.


democracynow--2020-01-24--Oakland Moms Who Occupied Vacant Property to Highlight Housing Crisis Celebrate Unexpected Victory

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
We end today ’ s show in Oakland , California , where a months-long struggle between a group of unhoused moms occupying a vacant home and the real estate firm that owned it ended with an unexpected victory for the mothers earlier this week : an offer for them to purchase the property .
The major win in the mothers ’ fight against homelessness and real estate speculation came just a week after Wedgewood Properties forcibly evicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Housing , from the home they had been occupying for more than two months .
The house had been vacant for two years .
Police , sheriff ’ s deputies and a tactical SWAT team with a military robot laid siege to the house to arrest and evict the mothers in the early hours of the morning , while one of the moms was live on Democracy Now !
from a studio in Berkeley .
The heavily militarized action sparked widespread outrage and condemnation , and left the mothers and their families homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Luther King Jr. Day , under growing public pressure , Wedgewood announced it would sell the property at a fair price through the Oakland Community Land Trust .
The moms will then be able to purchase the house through the trust .
This is Carroll Fife , director of the Oakland office for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment , celebrating the news .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , for more , we are joined by Carroll Fife live , of ACCE .
She ’ s joining us again from Berkeley , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s back with us , one of the members of Moms 4 Housing .
We just had them on last week following the eviction .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
Misty , explain what happened .
AMY GOODMAN : Yes .
If you could explain — I mean , you were evicted from the house , battering ram , SWAT team , arrested , and now Wedgewood Properties , which owns the house , is saying you can buy it through the land trust ?
MISTY CROSS : We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re still in negotiations with that .
Even though we are glad that Wedgewood wants to come forth and do the right thing , we ’ re still skeptical on how this whole agreement came into play .
It went on with our mayor , Libby Schaaf , behind closed doors .
We still don ’ t understand what the agreement was that brought them to the table , being as that we had City Council Representative Rebecca Kaplan and Nikki Bass to help negotiate agreements through the land trust from the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what Wedgewood really wants to agree on and why are they now trying to settle things , after all of this trauma has been caused to us .
AMY GOODMAN : Carroll Fife , you ’ re the director of ACCE .
You ’ re an organizer , educator , mother , have lived in the Oakland community more than 20 years .
Can you explain what exactly has been offered and what this land trust is ?
CARROLL FIFE : Sure .
The one demand that the moms had was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since day one , November 18th , the position was that the organization , Wedgewood , that purchased this home in a foreclosure sale , sit down and negotiate for the sale of the house to the land trust so it would be permanently affordable .
And so , after the pressure — and I think it was the militarized response by Alameda County sheriffs — it was too much to bear , not only for Wedgewood , but also for our mayor , who had been silent on this issue up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was all of that combined — the political pressure , the visible media — that made the parties want to come to the table , and also the moms calling out the governor for doing a homeless tour , bringing in trailers to address the crisis , 13 to 20 trailers to deal with the crisis , that really caused them to want to come to the table and negotiate .
But we ’ re getting word that Wedgewood may be getting cold feet on the offer , and they may be trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can sell it to the land trust for market rate , which is not what the moms are working to negotiate .
They want to make sure that Wedgewood sells it to the land trust for no more than what they purchased it for .
And so , if they are engaging in doing any repairs , we ’ re concerned that they may want to increase the sales price .
And that ’ s just not — that ’ s just not tenable .
AMY GOODMAN : Very quickly , Misty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , we had Carroll on as the raid went down , the battering ram , the robot , the SWAT team .
You were inside ?
MISTY CROSS : Yes , I was inside .
It was a bunch of mixed feelings going on at that time .
You really couldn ’ t put it all in one emotion .
It was a lot of mixed feelings — scared , afraid , don ’ t know if they were just going to come straight in with the guns .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downstairs where the front door was , so we didn ’ t want to come running down and run into gunfire .
Just a lot of things ran through our mind at that time .
But our main thing was to remain calm and to keep addressing that we weren ’ t going to be violent and that this was a civil disobedient act and that we weren ’ t going to be aggressors in this particular moment .
AMY GOODMAN : And you are where now ?
Talk about where you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living now .
MISTY CROSS : Me and the other moms are all working towards permanent housing .
We should all be good and settled before the beginning of February .
But we ’ re all working towards that goal .
Our main thing is to be able to get stable so that we can be mobile a little bit more in this movement , so that we can get on the ground and really do the footwork that needs to be done in holding people accountable for sending in the aggressive force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
AMY GOODMAN : Carroll Fife , as we wrap up the show , can you talk about what this possible agreement could mean for the issue of homelessness , not only in Oakland — I mean , we were just there doing a special , at least 90 encampments , growing every single day , San Francisco , Los Angeles .
It ’ s ground zero for homelessness in this country .
What this could mean for unhoused people and for the issue of homelessness in the United States ?
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CARROLL FIFE : Oh , absolutely .
Absolutely .
But it will be a fight .
I ’ ve seen on social media that , to the privileged , equity feels like oppression .
So , because this country has conditioned people to believe that property rights are more important than human rights , it ’ s definitely going to be a fight .
But I think this step towards a victory with Moms ’ House is an example that can be duplicated , not only in the Bay Area , but across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re fighting to expand the right to housing throughout the state of California with an amendment to the Constitution .
So , it ’ s going to take all hands on deck , all grassroots , people-powered organizations , to get on board and help us with this fight .
AMY GOODMAN : And what about the tech companies , that are driving up prices in San Francisco , real estate prices , saying they ’ re pouring hundreds of millions in dollars to help people around housing ?
How is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem ?
And do you think that is helpful or that the state has to be completely involved here ?
CARROLL FIFE : The state definitely has to be involved .
And the money that ’ s pouring into these programs are for homeless like sustenance programs .
They ’ re not transitioning into permanent housing .
And Misty and Tolani and Dominique are all examples of 211 and all of these different programs not working .
Wages have not kept pace with inflation .
People are invested in a system that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s incumbent upon our legislators to listen to the moms , to listen to people who ’ ve been a part of these programs that are just broken , so that we can do something different .
If we do not address the entirety of the problem , then it will only persist .
We have to address the fact that income inequality is growing , but rents keeps going up , the price of homes keep rising — keeps rising .
So , if we ’ re not addressing the entire issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Band-Aids on bullet wounds .
And it has to stop .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to thank you both so much for being with us , Carroll Fife , director of the Oakland office for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment , and Misty Cross of Moms 4 Housing .
You can see all our coverage of this issue at 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! We end today’s show in Oakland, California, where a months-long struggle between a group of unhoused moms occupying a vacant home and the real estate firm that owned it ended with an unexpected victory for the mothers earlier this week: an offer for them to purchase the property. The major win in the mothers’ fight against homelessness and real estate speculation came just a week after Wedgewood Properties forcibly evicted the families, known as Moms 4 Housing, from the home they had been occupying for more than two months. The house had been vacant for two years. Police, sheriff’s deputies and a tactical SWAT team with a military robot laid siege to the house to arrest and evict the mothers in the early hours of the morning, while one of the moms was live on Democracy Now! from a studio in Berkeley. The heavily militarized action sparked widespread outrage and condemnation, and left the mothers and their families homeless once again. But on Monday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, under growing public pressure, Wedgewood announced it would sell the property at a fair price through the Oakland Community Land Trust. The moms will then be able to purchase the house through the trust.
This is Carroll Fife, director of the Oakland office for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, celebrating the news.
CARROLL FIFE: It’s important to understand the history of civil disobedience in this country, because every single right that we have today was won by people engaging and pushing on what was legal. Right? So it’s important to not criminalize women who are trying to bring attention and justice and humanity to the masses, for everyone. They are not the criminals here. The criminal system is one that allows homelessness.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we are joined by Carroll Fife live, of ACCE. She’s joining us again from Berkeley, California, alongside Misty Cross, who’s back with us, one of the members of Moms 4 Housing. We just had them on last week following the eviction.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Misty, explain what happened.
MISTY CROSS: Between the agreement?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
MISTY CROSS: Or what part?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes. If you could explain — I mean, you were evicted from the house, battering ram, SWAT team, arrested, and now Wedgewood Properties, which owns the house, is saying you can buy it through the land trust?
MISTY CROSS: We’re still skeptical of that. We’re still in negotiations with that. Even though we are glad that Wedgewood wants to come forth and do the right thing, we’re still skeptical on how this whole agreement came into play. It went on with our mayor, Libby Schaaf, behind closed doors. We still don’t understand what the agreement was that brought them to the table, being as that we had City Council Representative Rebecca Kaplan and Nikki Bass to help negotiate agreements through the land trust from the beginning. So we’re still skeptical of what Wedgewood really wants to agree on and why are they now trying to settle things, after all of this trauma has been caused to us.
AMY GOODMAN: Carroll Fife, you’re the director of ACCE. You’re an organizer, educator, mother, have lived in the Oakland community more than 20 years. Can you explain what exactly has been offered and what this land trust is?
CARROLL FIFE: Sure. The one demand that the moms had was to negotiate with the Oakland Community Land Trust. Since day one, November 18th, the position was that the organization, Wedgewood, that purchased this home in a foreclosure sale, sit down and negotiate for the sale of the house to the land trust so it would be permanently affordable.
And so, after the pressure — and I think it was the militarized response by Alameda County sheriffs — it was too much to bear, not only for Wedgewood, but also for our mayor, who had been silent on this issue up until then. We feel like it was all of that combined — the political pressure, the visible media — that made the parties want to come to the table, and also the moms calling out the governor for doing a homeless tour, bringing in trailers to address the crisis, 13 to 20 trailers to deal with the crisis, that really caused them to want to come to the table and negotiate.
But we’re getting word that Wedgewood may be getting cold feet on the offer, and they may be trying to do improvements to the property so they can sell it to the land trust for market rate, which is not what the moms are working to negotiate. They want to make sure that Wedgewood sells it to the land trust for no more than what they purchased it for. And so, if they are engaging in doing any repairs, we’re concerned that they may want to increase the sales price. And that’s just not — that’s just not tenable.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Misty, describe what happened on that morning. In fact, we had Carroll on as the raid went down, the battering ram, the robot, the SWAT team. You were inside?
MISTY CROSS: Yes, I was inside. It was a bunch of mixed feelings going on at that time. You really couldn’t put it all in one emotion. It was a lot of mixed feelings — scared, afraid, don’t know if they were just going to come straight in with the guns. We were upstairs. We weren’t downstairs where the front door was, so we didn’t want to come running down and run into gunfire. Just a lot of things ran through our mind at that time. But our main thing was to remain calm and to keep addressing that we weren’t going to be violent and that this was a civil disobedient act and that we weren’t going to be aggressors in this particular moment.
AMY GOODMAN: And you are where now? Talk about where you, the other moms and the kids are living now.
MISTY CROSS: Me and the other moms are all working towards permanent housing. We should all be good and settled before the beginning of February. But we’re all working towards that goal. Our main thing is to be able to get stable so that we can be mobile a little bit more in this movement, so that we can get on the ground and really do the footwork that needs to be done in holding people accountable for sending in the aggressive force on the mom and children at that time.
AMY GOODMAN: Carroll Fife, as we wrap up the show, can you talk about what this possible agreement could mean for the issue of homelessness, not only in Oakland — I mean, we were just there doing a special, at least 90 encampments, growing every single day, San Francisco, Los Angeles. It’s ground zero for homelessness in this country. What this could mean for unhoused people and for the issue of homelessness in the United States? Do you see this as a model?
CARROLL FIFE: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. But it will be a fight. I’ve seen on social media that, to the privileged, equity feels like oppression. So, because this country has conditioned people to believe that property rights are more important than human rights, it’s definitely going to be a fight. But I think this step towards a victory with Moms’ House is an example that can be duplicated, not only in the Bay Area, but across the country, which is why we’re fighting to expand the right to housing throughout the state of California with an amendment to the Constitution. So, it’s going to take all hands on deck, all grassroots, people-powered organizations, to get on board and help us with this fight.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about the tech companies, that are driving up prices in San Francisco, real estate prices, saying they’re pouring hundreds of millions in dollars to help people around housing? How is it that you still have this growing homelessness problem? And do you think that is helpful or that the state has to be completely involved here?
CARROLL FIFE: The state definitely has to be involved. And the money that’s pouring into these programs are for homeless like sustenance programs. They’re not transitioning into permanent housing. And Misty and Tolani and Dominique are all examples of 211 and all of these different programs not working. Wages have not kept pace with inflation. People are invested in a system that is broken. And so, it’s incumbent upon our legislators to listen to the moms, to listen to people who’ve been a part of these programs that are just broken, so that we can do something different. If we do not address the entirety of the problem, then it will only persist. We have to address the fact that income inequality is growing, but rents keeps going up, the price of homes keep rising — keeps rising. So, if we’re not addressing the entire issue, then we’re just putting Band-Aids on bullet wounds. And it has to stop.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both so much for being with us, Carroll Fife, director of the Oakland office for Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and Misty Cross of Moms 4 Housing. You can see all our coverage of this issue at democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.


democracynow--2020-01-24--International Court of Justice Orders Burmese Authorities to Protect Rohingya Muslims from Genocide

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
In a major ruling , the U.N. International Court of Justice at The Hague has ordered Burma to “ take all measures within its power ” to protect Rohingya Muslims from genocide .
The court issued the ruling Thursday , calling the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Burma , also known as Myanmar , quote , “ extremely vulnerable ” to military violence .
The court ordered Burma to report regularly to the tribunal about its progress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burma ’ s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi , who last month asked the court to drop the genocide case against Burma .
Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Prize laureate .
She spent over a decade fighting against the Burmese military , was imprisoned by them .
She ’ s now defending them .
Gambia brought the genocide case to the International Court , accusing Burma of trying to , quote , “ destroy the Rohingya as a group , in whole or in part , by the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of sexual violence.
” The Burmese military killed and raped thousands of Rohingya and forced more than 700,000 to flee into neighboring Bangladesh in a brutal army crackdown in 2017 .
This is Rohingya refugee Enamul Hassan reacting to the court ’ s ruling from Bangladesh .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , for more , we go to Alicante , Spain , where we ’ re joined by Reed Brody , counsel for Human Rights Watch , via Democracy Now !
video stream .
Reed , can you talk about the significance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Justice ?
REED BRODY : Well , you know , this is the most important court in the world intervening in one of the worst atrocity — mass atrocity situations of our time , while the atrocities are still happening .
So , it doesn ’ t really get more significant than that .
As you mentioned , there are 700,000 Rohingyas who have been displaced into Bangladesh .
There are hundreds of thousands in camps in Myanmar .
Now , their situation obviously doesn ’ t just change overnight .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ My brothers and sisters , the door to justice has opened today.
” So I think , you know , this is a huge decision .
And as you said , it ’ s a huge rebuke to Aung San Suu Kyi and to the military in Burma .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain Aung San Suu Kyi ’ s position ?
I mean , she is a Nobel peace laureate .
She has long now defended the Burmese military in its genocide against the people , the Rohingya Muslims , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify on the military ’ s behalf — the military which imprisoned her and she fought against for decades .
REED BRODY : Well , obviously , she has thrown her lot in with the military .
And I think she ’ s showing domestic public opinion that she hates the Rohingya as much as , you know , many others do .
I mean , let ’ s remember that this is one of the most hated , persecuted minorities in the world .
And I was reminded by this decision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montt , in which the highland Mayan Indians , among the most marginalized people in the Americas — not as marginalized as the Rohingya — you know , were recognized as a group , and their rights were protected as victims of genocide .
And I think the same thing is happening today .
Aung San Suu Kyi never mentioned , and the government of Myanmar , in their response to yesterday ’ s ruling , never uses even the word “ Rohingya.
” But the court , the International Court of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said the Rohingya are a group , and they ’ re entitled to protection from genocide .
I think that ’ s — you know , that ’ s a major moment , not just for the Rohingya , but for international justice .
AMY GOODMAN : Now , what is the enforcement mechanism ?
I mean , this court , the International Court of Justice , a part of the U.N. , what does this mean ?
REED BRODY : Well , theoretically , the decisions are binding , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , we know that the Security Council , China has a veto , and so the Security Council will not enforce the judgment .
But the court did — first of all , the court established a reporting requirement .
It said every — it said the first — in four months , the government of Burma has to account for what it ’ s doing , and then every six months thereafter .
So it ’ s almost like a court supervision of what ’ s going on .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Human Rights Council in Geneva can take it up .
I think whether Myanmar applies this decision is going very much to depend on the international pressure that will come .
I mean , they were told not to destroy evidence .
Well , we can see , and we have seen in the past , through aerial photos , where they ’ re destroying evidence .
So , this is going to be — you know , it ’ s obviously going to take a lot , but there is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to depend on international pressure .
AMY GOODMAN : And can you talk about Gambia bringing this case , the speed with which the ICJ ruled ?
And what about other cases in the world where so many have died — for example , in Syria , what ’ s happening with the Uyghurs in China ?
Have any of these cases been brought , or even what U.S. is doing in the Middle East and in the Iraq War , etc.
, in the killing of Qassem Soleimani ?
REED @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , in terms of Gambia , I have to say , as you know , I work in Gambia , and I work closely with the attorney general there .
And Gambia took this case actually on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to protect the Moslems , Rohingya .
And the attorney general of the Gambia happened to have been a prosecutor of the Rwandan genocide , and he felt that he was seeing the same thing happen , and he took the lead .
And he has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very rare instance of South-South solidarity , Gambia , little Gambia , sticking up for a minority all the way across the world .
It ’ s interesting that you mention China and the Uyghurs , because when — the OIC , the Organization of Islamic Cooperation , which should be standing up , as well , for the minority in China ; instead , because of China ’ s not only military might , but also China has the unprecedented campaign by China to silence international critics — it was the topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s world report last week .
The OIC , Muslim countries in the world , actually adopted a statement praising China for how they care for the Muslim minority .
So , in many ways , this is a question of political balance of power .
In this case , Burma ’ s power is not the same internationally as China ’ s .
The case of Syria , you know , again , there ’ s a veto with Russia .
Syria has not ratified these conventions .
And Russia can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any accountability mechanism at that level .
Now , there are a lot of cases around the world where individual countries , in France , Germany and other places , have arrested and are prosecuting people , Syrian officials who have engaged in repression .
But , of course , it ’ s not the same as going to the state and going to the top .
AMY GOODMAN : We want to thank you so much for being with us , Reed Brody , counsel for Human Rights Watch .
When we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major victory by Moms 4 Housing in Oakland , California .
Back in 30 seconds .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! In a major ruling, the U.N. International Court of Justice at The Hague has ordered Burma to “take all measures within its power” to protect Rohingya Muslims from genocide. The court issued the ruling Thursday, calling the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Burma, also known as Myanmar, quote, “extremely vulnerable” to military violence. The court ordered Burma to report regularly to the tribunal about its progress.
The ruling is a sharp rebuke of Burma’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who last month asked the court to drop the genocide case against Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Prize laureate. She spent over a decade fighting against the Burmese military, was imprisoned by them. She’s now defending them.
Gambia brought the genocide case to the International Court, accusing Burma of trying to, quote, “destroy the Rohingya as a group, in whole or in part, by the use of mass murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence.” The Burmese military killed and raped thousands of Rohingya and forced more than 700,000 to flee into neighboring Bangladesh in a brutal army crackdown in 2017.
This is Rohingya refugee Enamul Hassan reacting to the court’s ruling from Bangladesh.
ENAMUL HASSAN: [translated] For a long time the government of Myanmar tortured our Rohingya people. They tortured too much, raped our mothers and sisters, killed our men. After a long time, Gambia filed the case on behalf of the Rohingya people in the ICJ court. By the grace of Allah, we got a rule on behalf of the Rohingya people. And for that, we are very grateful to the Gambian government. Now we wait to go back to our country with our rights.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we go to Alicante, Spain, where we’re joined by Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, via Democracy Now! video stream.
Reed, can you talk about the significance of the ruling of the International Court of Justice?
REED BRODY: Well, you know, this is the most important court in the world intervening in one of the worst atrocity — mass atrocity situations of our time, while the atrocities are still happening. So, it doesn’t really get more significant than that. As you mentioned, there are 700,000 Rohingyas who have been displaced into Bangladesh. There are hundreds of thousands in camps in Myanmar. Now, their situation obviously doesn’t just change overnight. But as a young Rohingyan poet said, “My brothers and sisters, the door to justice has opened today.” So I think, you know, this is a huge decision. And as you said, it’s a huge rebuke to Aung San Suu Kyi and to the military in Burma.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain Aung San Suu Kyi’s position? I mean, she is a Nobel peace laureate. She has long now defended the Burmese military in its genocide against the people, the Rohingya Muslims, and actually went to The Hague to testify on the military’s behalf — the military which imprisoned her and she fought against for decades.
REED BRODY: Well, obviously, she has thrown her lot in with the military. And I think she’s showing domestic public opinion that she hates the Rohingya as much as, you know, many others do. I mean, let’s remember that this is one of the most hated, persecuted minorities in the world. And I was reminded by this decision of the genocide conviction in Guatemala against Ríos Montt, in which the highland Mayan Indians, among the most marginalized people in the Americas — not as marginalized as the Rohingya — you know, were recognized as a group, and their rights were protected as victims of genocide. And I think the same thing is happening today. Aung San Suu Kyi never mentioned, and the government of Myanmar, in their response to yesterday’s ruling, never uses even the word “Rohingya.” But the court, the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, said the Rohingya are a group, and they’re entitled to protection from genocide. I think that’s — you know, that’s a major moment, not just for the Rohingya, but for international justice.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, what is the enforcement mechanism? I mean, this court, the International Court of Justice, a part of the U.N., what does this mean?
REED BRODY: Well, theoretically, the decisions are binding, and they’re transmitted to the Security Council. Now, we know that the Security Council, China has a veto, and so the Security Council will not enforce the judgment. But the court did — first of all, the court established a reporting requirement. It said every — it said the first — in four months, the government of Burma has to account for what it’s doing, and then every six months thereafter. So it’s almost like a court supervision of what’s going on. The General Assembly can take it up. The Human Rights Council in Geneva can take it up. I think whether Myanmar applies this decision is going very much to depend on the international pressure that will come. I mean, they were told not to destroy evidence. Well, we can see, and we have seen in the past, through aerial photos, where they’re destroying evidence. So, this is going to be — you know, it’s obviously going to take a lot, but there is an enforcement possibility and a mechanism that’s going to depend on international pressure.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about Gambia bringing this case, the speed with which the ICJ ruled? And what about other cases in the world where so many have died — for example, in Syria, what’s happening with the Uyghurs in China? Have any of these cases been brought, or even what U.S. is doing in the Middle East and in the Iraq War, etc., in the killing of Qassem Soleimani?
REED BRODY: Well, of course, you know, in terms of Gambia, I have to say, as you know, I work in Gambia, and I work closely with the attorney general there. And Gambia took this case actually on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to protect the Moslems, Rohingya. And the attorney general of the Gambia happened to have been a prosecutor of the Rwandan genocide, and he felt that he was seeing the same thing happen, and he took the lead. And he has a wonderful back story that really legitimizes this very rare instance of South-South solidarity, Gambia, little Gambia, sticking up for a minority all the way across the world.
It’s interesting that you mention China and the Uyghurs, because when — the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which should be standing up, as well, for the minority in China; instead, because of China’s not only military might, but also China has the unprecedented campaign by China to silence international critics — it was the topic, actually, of Human Rights Watch’s world report last week. The OIC, Muslim countries in the world, actually adopted a statement praising China for how they care for the Muslim minority. So, in many ways, this is a question of political balance of power. In this case, Burma’s power is not the same internationally as China’s.
The case of Syria, you know, again, there’s a veto with Russia. Syria has not ratified these conventions. And Russia can veto, and China can veto, any accountability mechanism at that level. Now, there are a lot of cases around the world where individual countries, in France, Germany and other places, have arrested and are prosecuting people, Syrian officials who have engaged in repression. But, of course, it’s not the same as going to the state and going to the top.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much for being with us, Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch.
When we come back, we look at a major victory by Moms 4 Housing in Oakland, California. Back in 30 seconds.


democracynow--2020-01-24--Law Professor: Trump Could Also Have Been Impeached for War Crimes, Assassinations & Corruption

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We turn now to the historic impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump .
Democratic lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office .
Today marks the final day of a 24-hour opening argument by the Democrats .
Republicans begin their opening arguments Saturday .
The Senate impeachment trial comes a month after the House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
On Thursday , House impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity .
AMY GOODMAN : During his presentation , Judiciary chair in the House Jerrold Nadler relied in part on past statements made by key supporters of President Trump .
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly left the Senate chamber shortly before Congressman Nadler played the clip of him from Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial in 1999 .
During another part of Thursday ’ s proceedings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relied on polls by Fox News to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed the former vice president could beat Trump in 2020 .
AMY GOODMAN : House Intelligence chair , House manager Adam Schiff — he ’ s the lead House impeachment manager — ended the long day of oral arguments .
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about the impeachment trial of President Trump , we go to San Diego , California , where we ’ re joined by Marjorie Cohn , professor emerita @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s the former president of the National Lawyers Guild .
Her most recent book , Drones and Targeted Killing : Legal , Moral , and Geopolitical Issues .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Marjorie Cohn .
Start off by assessing the Democrats ’ case so far for the removal of President Trump .
MARJORIE COHN : Well , yes , Amy .
The Democratic managers , the House managers , have laid out a meticulous case for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
And many of these Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sit in their chairs for eight hours a day without talking , without using cellphones , are a captive audience .
And many of them have never heard this before .
They didn ’ t follow the case that was made in the House .
And this case is so powerful and so deep that Schiff said at the end — Adam Schiff said at the end , “ You know he ’ s guilty .
The question is : Will you remove him ?
” Now , these senators , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
They are what Frank Rich would call Vichy Republicans , Vichy being the government in France , in Nazi-occupied France , who were doing Hitler ’ s bidding .
They walk in lockstep with him , and there is almost no chance that they ’ re not going to acquit him .
But what Adam Schiff was trying to get across was , they are going to be on the wrong side of history , because what Donald Trump does — and he does this consistently — is to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national interest .
And that ’ s something that they all have to grapple with .
Now , one of the things that they focused on yesterday was to refute the allegations that the Bidens did something wrong and therefore there was merit in Trump ’ s , basically , demand that Zelensky , the president of Ukraine , investigate what they did with the Burisma company .
And what the Democrats were trying to do is to take the wind out of the sails of the Republican case by bringing it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said now — and this is the defense team , Donald Trump ’ s defense team — is that , “ Well , now that they ’ ve opened the door , now that the managers have opened the door , we ’ re going to make that probably a focus ” of their defense .
Now , what they did in the House was to focus mainly on process , whereas the managers , the Democrats , focused on the facts and laid out this roadmap to prove abuse of power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did was to focus on process : “ Donald Trump was denied due process ” — which he wasn ’ t .
He was invited to come and didn ’ t participate .
Many process arguments .
It ’ s unclear to me , Amy , how the Republicans , how the defense , Donald Trump ’ s defense , is going to take up two or three days — and they ’ ve said now it ’ s probably going to be two days — in addition to meeting the Biden — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re going to really harp on that .
It ’ s not clear what they ’ re going to do .
They ’ re going to harp on process .
But the thing that ’ s really important about this is not so much that — he ’ s not going to be found guilty .
There ’ s no doubt about that .
The American people are watching .
They ’ re following this .
And just like during Watergate , when people were riveted to the television , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe , in the election .
The polls are already showing that people , the majority of American people , think he should be removed .
A huge majority think he did something unethical .
And a sizable majority think he did something illegal .
So , this is really , really important , even though ultimately he won ’ t be removed .
AMY GOODMAN : And if he is found guilty , is he automatically removed ?
MARJORIE COHN : The Constitution provides that the Senate is to determine his guilt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really part of the same thing , and therefore — and this is what Adam Schiff was trying to get at — even though all or most of the Republicans know in their heart of hearts that he ’ s guilty , they don ’ t think he should be removed .
And so , therefore , they will probably , in all probability , vote not guilty .
But , yes , conviction means removal .
That ’ s not going to happen .
AMY GOODMAN : You said that the senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , that ’ s not what ’ s happening .
Is that right ?
I mean , to be very clear , the Republicans are controlling the frame of the TV image .
It ’ s no longer , you know , C-SPAN on the floor of the Senate or the House , so you can ’ t see what ’ s actually happening behind the scenes .
But you have Tennessee Republican Senator Blackburn .
She ’ s got books that she ’ s reading .
You have Thom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he went into the press gallery to hang out there for a while .
And , of course , Lindsey Graham , when Congressmember Nadler played the clip of him saying exactly the opposite of what he ’ s saying now , that it has to be a crime that President Trump has committed , according to the criminal code , saying the opposite during Clinton ’ s trial , he reportedly was not in the Senate chamber .
MARJORIE COHN : Yes , that ’ s true .
There were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who were coming and going .
But the bulk of them are listening to , if not all of it , most of it .
They just can ’ t get away from it .
They are not allowed to have cellphones , which is probably really difficult for them .
And , yes , they do get up and leave and come back , and we ’ re not seeing that , but most of them are hearing most of this very airtight case , really .
AMY GOODMAN : Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been impeached for , these two articles of impeachment ?
And if you think — I mean , just look at the title of your book , Drones and Targeted Killing : Legal , Moral , and Geopolitical Issues .
You have long focused on the issue of war crimes and U.S. presidents guilty of them .
The narrow framing of this impeachment ?
MARJORIE COHN : Yes .
Well , Nancy Pelosi resisted for many , many months mounting impeachment , an impeachment proceeding in the House .
And there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been impeached for : violation of the emoluments clause , corruption and war crimes , as you said , most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter , in violation of the War Powers Resolution .
But when the whistleblower complaint came out and it became so clear what Trump had done with strong-arming Zelensky to mount — not to mount investigations necessarily , but to announce that he was mounting investigations into Trump ’ s political rival , Joe Biden and this discredited theory that Ukraine had meddled in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was an airtight case .
It was narrow .
It was clear .
People could get their brains around it .
And so we have these two articles of impeachment .
Abuse of power and quid pro quo , this for that , dirt for dollars — I think is one of the phrases that we hear — that Trump really believed that because we ’ ve been so good to Ukraine , Ukraine owes us .
He really does not understand how foreign policy works .
It ’ s all about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look good .
So , this dirt for dollars — in other words , if Zelensky , the president of Ukraine , announced an investigation against the Bidens , that would tarnish Biden , who was leading him in the polls at that time , and help Trump ’ s re-election .
Patently illegal , a patent abuse of power .
And then the second article of impeachment is obstruction of Congress .
And in an unprecedented move — no president ever before has done this , a president facing impeachment , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totally stonewalled the House of Representatives , not producing one document in response to subpoenas , forbidding all officials of the executive branch from testifying .
And this is a direct violation of the Constitution ’ s command that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment .
That means it ’ s not up to the president to decide whether he ’ s going to cooperate with it .
And now , of course , we move to the Senate trial .
We have moved to the Senate trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial was filled with pretrial motions , 11 motions , by the House managers for the testimony of four witnesses and the production of documents from a number of government agencies .
Two of those witnesses are John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney .
Mick Mulvaney said very incriminating things about the president , admitting the quid pro quo .
And John Bolton , who left on bad terms , left the White House on bad terms , he says he ’ s prepared to testify if he ’ s subpoenaed .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton ’ s testimony .
And , you know , what Trump thinks comes right out in his tweets .
There ’ s no guessing what he ’ s thinking .
And most recently he said he doesn ’ t want Bolton to testify because “ Bolton knows how I feel about these matters , ” and it ’ s a national security threat .
And he said , “ We didn ’ t leave on the best of terms.
” And he ’ s terrified about what Bolton will say .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans , to a person , walked in lockstep with Trump in tabling the whole issue of whether or not witnesses would be allowed , these four witnesses or any witnesses , and whether documents could be subpoenaed , until after six days of argument , opening arguments , by the two parties , by the House managers and by the defense , and 16 hours of questioning by the senators .
It ’ s like in Alice in Wonderland : first the trial , then the evidence .
So we have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the questions by senators .
And then , are we going to have evidence ?
Looks like we may not .
Looks like they may prevent witnesses from testifying , although they have made noises about wanting one of the Bidens to testify , to bolster this spurious theory that they did something wrong .
The Bidens have been completely exonerated by everybody who has examined what happened during this time in Ukraine , when Joe Biden was acting as vice president consistent with American policy — very , very different from what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , let me stick with the Bidens for a minute .
I want to read from today ’ s New York Times , the front page .
“ Joseph R. Biden Jr. called an octogenarian voter a 'damn liar ' and challenged him to a push-up contest .
He dismissed a heckler as an 'idiot . '
He commanded the news media to focus on President Trump instead of the overseas business dealings of his son , Hunter Biden , demanding of one reporter , 'Ask the right question ! '
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of questions about his son touches on a vulnerability for his candidacy and presents a fine line for him to navigate .
… At issue is an unsubstantiated theory pushed by Mr. Trump that Mr. Biden took action in Ukraine as vice president in order to help his son , who at the time held a lucrative position as a board member of Burisma Holdings , a Ukrainian energy company.
” So , I mean , let ’ s talk about this for a minute .
You know , some have speculated this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , at this time , because , you know , four senators can ’ t be out on the campaign trail , the leading senators in the Senate , Senator Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren , so Biden is out there along with Buttigieg in Iowa at this key moment .
But it could also be a liability for Biden , as he is now open to questions from both Iowans and reporters about what actually happened , not necessarily about what Vice President Biden did .
But what about his son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Burisma ?
If you can talk about what the accusations are and also , significantly , this whole issue of reciprocal witnesses , the idea that the Republicans could call Hunter Biden to testify ?
Clearly , Biden is getting very nervous about this , too .
MARJORIE COHN : He is , Amy .
And yes , this could cut both ways .
People will be very defensive of Biden and say , you know , he ’ s being unfairly attacked , he ’ s been cleared , he didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other hand , some people will think , “ Well , where there ’ s smoke , there ’ s fire.
” And this doesn ’ t look good .
Biden , Joe Biden , was vice president at the same time that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma , this very , very lucrative position .
But Biden was vice president at the time , and he — consistent with the Obama administration ’ s policy , he was pressuring Ukraine to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose corruption in Ukraine .
And so , really , in that context , Biden did not do anything wrong .
However , that doesn ’ t mean that the fact that he is in this position — was in this position , and his son was on the board of Burisma , is going to raise some questions .
Where there ’ s smoke , there ’ s fire .
There will be people who will not support Biden for that reason .
On the other hand , he may well benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Now , if there are witnesses allowed at all — and I highly doubt it — I can ’ t imagine that the Republicans would not push to subpoena one or both of the Bidens .
And then it ’ s going to become a mini trial , a trial within a trial , where it ’ s going to focus on what Biden did or didn ’ t do .
Did he do something improper ?
Was Trump justified in asking Zelensky to mount an investigation of Joe Biden ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be very interesting .
And certainly , the Republicans , Trump ’ s defense , are going to go deeply into the appearance of impropriety with Biden and his son .
It remains to be seen whether one or both of the Bidens will actually be called to testify , and whether any witnesses , for that matter , will be called to testify .
AMY GOODMAN : And , very quickly , this whole issue that Republicans are raising , if the witness issue is going to be — this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it will go to court .
Now , interestingly , the chief justice of the Supreme Court , John Roberts , is right in the room .
He ’ s presiding over this trial .
So , where does he weigh in on this ?
And is this true ?
MARJORIE COHN : I don ’ t see this being hung up in the courts .
I think it will be resolved in the Senate .
Chief Justice John Roberts is in a very , very delicate position .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than where he is , presiding over this Senate trial , which the Constitution provides for .
And he really doesn ’ t have much power .
One of the amendments that the House managers proposed in their pretrial motions was to allow Chief Justice John Roberts to determine whether any prospective witness ’ s testimony would be relevant to the issues .
And the Republicans voted that down .
Now , even if they had allowed that to happen and he had served that function , any ruling that John Roberts makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , it ’ s really kind of a ceremonial role that he plays .
He is not going to take an active role .
He ’ s going to follow what Chief Justice Rehnquist did during the Clinton impeachment trial and really call balls and strikes , for the first time , which is what Roberts promised to do during his confirmation hearings as Supreme Court justice .
And , of course , that is not the case at all .
AMY GOODMAN : Marjorie Cohn , I want to thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Thomas Jefferson School of Law , former president of the National Lawyers Guild , deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers , member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace .
Her most recent book , Drones and Targeted Killing : Legal , Moral , and Geopolitical Issues .
When we come back , what the International Court of Justice said about the Rohingya .
And then , Moms 4 Housing , a major victory in Oakland , California .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the historic impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. Democratic lawmakers are continuing to lay out their case for removing the president from office. Today marks the final day of a 24-hour opening argument by the Democrats. Republicans begin their opening arguments Saturday. The Senate impeachment trial comes a month after the House impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump’s political rival, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. On Thursday, House impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler made the case that a president can be impeached for noncriminal activity.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: No one anticipated that a president would stoop to this misconduct, and Congress has passed no specific law to make this behavior a crime. Yet this is precisely the kind of abuse that the framers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause and when they charged Congress with determining when the president’s conduct was so clearly wrong, so definitely beyond the pale, so threatening to the constitutional order as to require his removal.
AMY GOODMAN: During his presentation, Judiciary chair in the House Jerrold Nadler relied in part on past statements made by key supporters of President Trump.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: And I might say the same thing of then-House manager Lindsey Graham, who, in President Clinton’s trial, flatly rejected the notion that impeachable offenses are limited to violations of established law. Here is what he said.
REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM: What’s a high crime? How about if an important person hurt somebody of low means? It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. Doesn’t even have to be a crime.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: In Attorney General Barr’s view, as expressed about 18 months ago, presidents cannot be indicted or criminally investigated, but that’s OK, because they can be impeached. That’s the safeguard. And in an impeachment, Attorney General Barr added, the “President is answerable for any abuses of discretion” and may be held “accountable under law for his misdeeds in office.”
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly left the Senate chamber shortly before Congressman Nadler played the clip of him from Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. During another part of Thursday’s proceedings, House impeachment manager Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia relied on polls by Fox News to make the case that President Trump decided to target Joe Biden after polls showed the former vice president could beat Trump in 2020.
REP. SYLVIA GARCIA: It wasn’t until Biden began beating him in the polls that he called for the investigation. The president asked Ukraine for this investigation for one reason and one reason only: because he knew he would — it would be damaging to an opponent who was consistently beating him in the polls, and therefore it could help him get re-elected in 2020. President Trump had the motive, he had the opportunity and the means, to commit this abuse of power. … If we allow this gross abuse of power to continue, this president would have free rein — free rein — to abuse his control of U.S. foreign policy for personal interests. And so would any other future president. And then this president and all presidents become above the law.
AMY GOODMAN: House Intelligence chair, House manager Adam Schiff — he’s the lead House impeachment manager — ended the long day of oral arguments.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: It doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn’t matter how brilliant the framers were. It doesn’t matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. It doesn’t matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. The framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves, if right and truth don’t matter. And you know that what he did was not right.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the impeachment trial of President Trump, we go to San Diego, California, where we’re joined by Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She’s the former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Marjorie Cohn. Start off by assessing the Democrats’ case so far for the removal of President Trump.
MARJORIE COHN: Well, yes, Amy. The Democratic managers, the House managers, have laid out a meticulous case for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. And many of these Republican senators who are listening, who have to sit in their chairs for eight hours a day without talking, without using cellphones, are a captive audience. And many of them have never heard this before. They didn’t follow the case that was made in the House. And this case is so powerful and so deep that Schiff said at the end — Adam Schiff said at the end, “You know he’s guilty. The question is: Will you remove him?”
Now, these senators, the Republicans, have walked in lockstep with Donald Trump. They are what Frank Rich would call Vichy Republicans, Vichy being the government in France, in Nazi-occupied France, who were doing Hitler’s bidding. They walk in lockstep with him, and there is almost no chance that they’re not going to acquit him. But what Adam Schiff was trying to get across was, they are going to be on the wrong side of history, because what Donald Trump does — and he does this consistently — is to put his own personal interest ahead of the national interest. And that’s something that they all have to grapple with.
Now, one of the things that they focused on yesterday was to refute the allegations that the Bidens did something wrong and therefore there was merit in Trump’s, basically, demand that Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, investigate what they did with the Burisma company. And what the Democrats were trying to do is to take the wind out of the sails of the Republican case by bringing it up first. And what the Republicans have said now — and this is the defense team, Donald Trump’s defense team — is that, “Well, now that they’ve opened the door, now that the managers have opened the door, we’re going to make that probably a focus” of their defense.
Now, what they did in the House was to focus mainly on process, whereas the managers, the Democrats, focused on the facts and laid out this roadmap to prove abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. What the Republicans did was to focus on process: “Donald Trump was denied due process” — which he wasn’t. He was invited to come and didn’t participate. Many process arguments. It’s unclear to me, Amy, how the Republicans, how the defense, Donald Trump’s defense, is going to take up two or three days — and they’ve said now it’s probably going to be two days — in addition to meeting the Biden — talking about the Biden issue, because they’re going to really harp on that. It’s not clear what they’re going to do. They’re going to harp on process.
But the thing that’s really important about this is not so much that — he’s not going to be found guilty. There’s no doubt about that. The American people are watching. They’re following this. And just like during Watergate, when people were riveted to the television, that is going to be reflected, I believe, in the election. The polls are already showing that people, the majority of American people, think he should be removed. A huge majority think he did something unethical. And a sizable majority think he did something illegal. So, this is really, really important, even though ultimately he won’t be removed.
AMY GOODMAN: And if he is found guilty, is he automatically removed?
MARJORIE COHN: The Constitution provides that the Senate is to determine his guilt and removal. So it’s really part of the same thing, and therefore — and this is what Adam Schiff was trying to get at — even though all or most of the Republicans know in their heart of hearts that he’s guilty, they don’t think he should be removed. And so, therefore, they will probably, in all probability, vote not guilty. But, yes, conviction means removal. That’s not going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN: You said that the senators have to sit there for eight hours. In fact, that’s not what’s happening. Is that right? I mean, to be very clear, the Republicans are controlling the frame of the TV image. It’s no longer, you know, C-SPAN on the floor of the Senate or the House, so you can’t see what’s actually happening behind the scenes. But you have Tennessee Republican Senator Blackburn. She’s got books that she’s reading. You have Thom Tillis. I believe he got up and he went into the press gallery to hang out there for a while. And, of course, Lindsey Graham, when Congressmember Nadler played the clip of him saying exactly the opposite of what he’s saying now, that it has to be a crime that President Trump has committed, according to the criminal code, saying the opposite during Clinton’s trial, he reportedly was not in the Senate chamber.
MARJORIE COHN: Yes, that’s true. There were a handful of senators who were not there, who were coming and going. But the bulk of them are listening to, if not all of it, most of it. They just can’t get away from it. They are not allowed to have cellphones, which is probably really difficult for them. And, yes, they do get up and leave and come back, and we’re not seeing that, but most of them are hearing most of this very airtight case, really.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about exactly what President Trump has been impeached for, these two articles of impeachment? And if you think — I mean, just look at the title of your book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. You have long focused on the issue of war crimes and U.S. presidents guilty of them. The narrow framing of this impeachment?
MARJORIE COHN: Yes. Well, Nancy Pelosi resisted for many, many months mounting impeachment, an impeachment proceeding in the House. And there are many different grounds that he could have been impeached for: violation of the emoluments clause, corruption and war crimes, as you said, most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter, in violation of the War Powers Resolution. But when the whistleblower complaint came out and it became so clear what Trump had done with strong-arming Zelensky to mount — not to mount investigations necessarily, but to announce that he was mounting investigations into Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden and this discredited theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election, Nancy Pelosi understood that this was an airtight case. It was narrow. It was clear. People could get their brains around it.
And so we have these two articles of impeachment. Abuse of power and quid pro quo, this for that, dirt for dollars — I think is one of the phrases that we hear — that Trump really believed that because we’ve been so good to Ukraine, Ukraine owes us. He really does not understand how foreign policy works. It’s all about making a business deal, making himself look good. So, this dirt for dollars — in other words, if Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, announced an investigation against the Bidens, that would tarnish Biden, who was leading him in the polls at that time, and help Trump’s re-election. Patently illegal, a patent abuse of power. And then the second article of impeachment is obstruction of Congress. And in an unprecedented move — no president ever before has done this, a president facing impeachment, even judges facing impeachment, haven’t totally stonewalled the House of Representatives, not producing one document in response to subpoenas, forbidding all officials of the executive branch from testifying. And this is a direct violation of the Constitution’s command that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. That means it’s not up to the president to decide whether he’s going to cooperate with it.
And now, of course, we move to the Senate trial. We have moved to the Senate trial. And the first day of the trial was filled with pretrial motions, 11 motions, by the House managers for the testimony of four witnesses and the production of documents from a number of government agencies. Two of those witnesses are John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney said very incriminating things about the president, admitting the quid pro quo. And John Bolton, who left on bad terms, left the White House on bad terms, he says he’s prepared to testify if he’s subpoenaed. Now, Trump is very, very threatened by Bolton’s testimony. And, you know, what Trump thinks comes right out in his tweets. There’s no guessing what he’s thinking. And most recently he said he doesn’t want Bolton to testify because “Bolton knows how I feel about these matters,” and it’s a national security threat. And he said, “We didn’t leave on the best of terms.” And he’s terrified about what Bolton will say.
Now, In the pretrial motions, the Republicans, to a person, walked in lockstep with Trump in tabling the whole issue of whether or not witnesses would be allowed, these four witnesses or any witnesses, and whether documents could be subpoenaed, until after six days of argument, opening arguments, by the two parties, by the House managers and by the defense, and 16 hours of questioning by the senators. It’s like in Alice in Wonderland: first the trial, then the evidence. So we have the opening statements, and then we have the questions by senators. And then, are we going to have evidence? Looks like we may not. Looks like they may prevent witnesses from testifying, although they have made noises about wanting one of the Bidens to testify, to bolster this spurious theory that they did something wrong. The Bidens have been completely exonerated by everybody who has examined what happened during this time in Ukraine, when Joe Biden was acting as vice president consistent with American policy — very, very different from what Trump is accused of.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me stick with the Bidens for a minute. I want to read from today’s New York Times, the front page. “Joseph R. Biden Jr. called an octogenarian voter a 'damn liar' and challenged him to a push-up contest. He dismissed a heckler as an 'idiot.' He commanded the news media to focus on President Trump instead of the overseas business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, demanding of one reporter, 'Ask the right question!' … For Mr. Biden, the stream of questions about his son touches on a vulnerability for his candidacy and presents a fine line for him to navigate. … At issue is an unsubstantiated theory pushed by Mr. Trump that Mr. Biden took action in Ukraine as vice president in order to help his son, who at the time held a lucrative position as a board member of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company.”
So, I mean, let’s talk about this for a minute. You know, some have speculated this is a real crisis, the impeachment trial, at this time, because, you know, four senators can’t be out on the campaign trail, the leading senators in the Senate, Senator Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, so Biden is out there along with Buttigieg in Iowa at this key moment. But it could also be a liability for Biden, as he is now open to questions from both Iowans and reporters about what actually happened, not necessarily about what Vice President Biden did. But what about his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Burisma? If you can talk about what the accusations are and also, significantly, this whole issue of reciprocal witnesses, the idea that the Republicans could call Hunter Biden to testify? Clearly, Biden is getting very nervous about this, too.
MARJORIE COHN: He is, Amy. And yes, this could cut both ways. People will be very defensive of Biden and say, you know, he’s being unfairly attacked, he’s been cleared, he didn’t do anything wrong. And on the other hand, some people will think, “Well, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” And this doesn’t look good. Biden, Joe Biden, was vice president at the same time that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, this very, very lucrative position. But Biden was vice president at the time, and he — consistent with the Obama administration’s policy, he was pressuring Ukraine to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor, because the U.S. policy was to oppose corruption in Ukraine. And so, really, in that context, Biden did not do anything wrong. However, that doesn’t mean that the fact that he is in this position — was in this position, and his son was on the board of Burisma, is going to raise some questions. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There will be people who will not support Biden for that reason. On the other hand, he may well benefit from being on the defensive by Donald Trump.
Now, if there are witnesses allowed at all — and I highly doubt it — I can’t imagine that the Republicans would not push to subpoena one or both of the Bidens. And then it’s going to become a mini trial, a trial within a trial, where it’s going to focus on what Biden did or didn’t do. Did he do something improper? Was Trump justified in asking Zelensky to mount an investigation of Joe Biden? And so, I think this is going to be very interesting. And certainly, the Republicans, Trump’s defense, are going to go deeply into the appearance of impropriety with Biden and his son. It remains to be seen whether one or both of the Bidens will actually be called to testify, and whether any witnesses, for that matter, will be called to testify.
AMY GOODMAN: And, very quickly, this whole issue that Republicans are raising, if the witness issue is going to be — this impeachment trial could go on for months, because it will go to court. Now, interestingly, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is right in the room. He’s presiding over this trial. So, where does he weigh in on this? And is this true?
MARJORIE COHN: I don’t see this being hung up in the courts. I think it will be resolved in the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts is in a very, very delicate position. I’m sure he would rather be anywhere than where he is, presiding over this Senate trial, which the Constitution provides for. And he really doesn’t have much power. One of the amendments that the House managers proposed in their pretrial motions was to allow Chief Justice John Roberts to determine whether any prospective witness’s testimony would be relevant to the issues. And the Republicans voted that down. Now, even if they had allowed that to happen and he had served that function, any ruling that John Roberts makes could be overruled by 51 senators. So, it’s really kind of a ceremonial role that he plays. He is not going to take an active role. He’s going to follow what Chief Justice Rehnquist did during the Clinton impeachment trial and really call balls and strikes, for the first time, which is what Roberts promised to do during his confirmation hearings as Supreme Court justice. And, of course, that is not the case at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Marjorie Cohn, I want to thank you for being with us, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
When we come back, what the International Court of Justice said about the Rohingya. And then, Moms 4 Housing, a major victory in Oakland, California. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-24--Headlines for January 24, 2020

Headlines for January 24, 2020

In Mexico , soldiers in riot gear used batons and pepper spray Thursday to beat back a caravan of hundreds of Central American migrants and asylum seekers after they crossed into the southern state of Chiapas from Guatemala .
Among the injured was a pregnant woman who was left unconscious by the assault .
Mexican officials say about 800 people were rounded up and bussed to a nearby immigration jail .
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador — known as AMLO — has bowed to intense pressure by President Donald Trump to crack down on Central American migrants heading toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from rampant gang violence , grinding poverty , and crop failures driven by climate change .
Last week , President AMLO pledged to provide jobs to thousands of the migrants as long as they applied for asylum in Mexico — and not the U.S .
But many of those arrested in another immigration roundup earlier this week say they were lied to .
This is José Henríquez , one of over 400 asylum seekers deported to northern Honduras on Thursday .
José Henríquez : “ Over at the Mexican border , they tricked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico they were going to give us jobs , that there was employment for 4,500 people .
And it was a lie that there were three states ready to receive all the Hondurans who wanted to work there .
But they only deceived us .
”

In Mexico, soldiers in riot gear used batons and pepper spray Thursday to beat back a caravan of hundreds of Central American migrants and asylum seekers after they crossed into the southern state of Chiapas from Guatemala. Among the injured was a pregnant woman who was left unconscious by the assault. Mexican officials say about 800 people were rounded up and bussed to a nearby immigration jail.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador — known as AMLO — has bowed to intense pressure by President Donald Trump to crack down on Central American migrants heading toward the U.S.-Mexico border as they seek asylum from rampant gang violence, grinding poverty, and crop failures driven by climate change.
Last week, President AMLO pledged to provide jobs to thousands of the migrants as long as they applied for asylum in Mexico — and not the U.S. But many of those arrested in another immigration roundup earlier this week say they were lied to. This is José Henríquez, one of over 400 asylum seekers deported to northern Honduras on Thursday.