democracynow--2020-01-27--"Ours to Tell": New Film Highlights Personal Stories About the Importance of Abortion Access

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to turn now to a new short film that ’ s challenging the stigma surrounding abortion , through the stories of four people reflecting on their own decisions to terminate a pregnancy .
It ’ s called Ours to Tell .
This is the film ’ s trailer .
AMY GOODMAN : Ours to Tell was directed by Rayka Zehtabchi and created by Planned Parenthood and We Testify .
We ’ re joined now here in Park City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , founder and executive director of We Testify , the film ’ s executive producer .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us .
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN : Thank you so much for having me .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you ’ re with We Testify .
Explain your group .
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN : Yeah .
So , our organization is dedicated to the leadership and representation of people who have had abortions .
For too long we have not been seen as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve been left out .
We ’ ve been kind of thought of as this abstract idea .
And we ’ re the ones who are having abortions .
We should be talking about it .
And we should be represented with respect on television and in the news .
AMY GOODMAN : And talk about your own experience .
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN : Yeah .
So , I had an abortion when I was 19 .
I was in an unsafe relationship , and I simply didn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parent .
And I was lucky .
At that point I could just drive to the clinic 15 minutes from my home .
I maxed out a credit card to pay for it .
And the procedure took all of 10 minutes .
But the reality is today that most people have to travel long distances .
They have a hard time paying for their abortions .
And it ’ s simply inaccessible , despite it being legal .
And that ’ s what we ’ re hoping to bring light to and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in accessing it .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go to another clip of Ours to Tell , where each of the four people featured in the film reflects on why they chose to terminate their pregnancy .
HANNAH : So , these are some things that I wrote when I was 18 years old .
“ I believe that any person has freedom to do what they would like to their own body .
And if timing is not right or the mother is not ready , then she should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to have a child or not , just as I did.
” YLONDA : I just remember closing my eyes , praying , and just , before I knew it , the words were coming out , and I said , “ I can ’ t , Doctor .
I can ’ t. ” I knew I was at peace with it .
I knew my god was at peace with it .
And I think it was one of the first major decisions I made with no consideration of anyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the best mother that I could be to the children I had .
AMY GOODMAN : Ours to Tell , just a clip from that .
Renee Bracey Sherman , talk about who the people are in the film , and also storytelling as a form of resistance .
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN : Absolutely .
So , Brittany and Ylonda are two black moms , raising their children , who had abortions .
Hannah is a Mexican woman .
And Nick is a Houston trans person , living in Houston , talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trans people having abortions .
And I think storytelling is extremely important in this time when we have the president going to the March for Life , denigrating us ; we have the secretary of education denigrating black people who have abortions .
Our voices need to be heard , and we are speaking out that we had abortions .
We ’ re making this decision for ourselves .
And that ’ s what ’ s most important .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , I want to thank you so much , Renee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and executive director of We Testify , executive producer of the new short film Ours to Tell , which is also produced by Planned Parenthood .
You can see the full film at OursToTell.org .
And that does it for our first broadcast from Park City , from the Sundance Film Festival .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to turn now to a new short film that’s challenging the stigma surrounding abortion, through the stories of four people reflecting on their own decisions to terminate a pregnancy. It’s called Ours to Tell. This is the film’s trailer.
TRAINER: Twenty. Come on, dig, Brick House.
NATASHA ROTHWELL: This is a plea for love and for freedom, that each of us is free not only to dream our best life, but that we have the freedom to live it. This is a demand for an end to judgment, an end to stigma, an end to silence, and an end to shame.
AMY GOODMAN: Ours to Tell was directed by Rayka Zehtabchi and created by Planned Parenthood and We Testify. We’re joined now here in Park City, Utah, by Renee Bracey Sherman, founder and executive director of We Testify, the film’s executive producer.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us.
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN: Thank you so much for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re with We Testify. Explain your group.
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN: Yeah. So, our organization is dedicated to the leadership and representation of people who have had abortions. For too long we have not been seen as the experts in the conversation about abortion. We’ve been left out. We’ve been kind of thought of as this abstract idea. And we’re the ones who are having abortions. We should be talking about it. And we should be represented with respect on television and in the news.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about your own experience.
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN: Yeah. So, I had an abortion when I was 19. I was in an unsafe relationship, and I simply didn’t feel like I was ready to become a parent. And I was lucky. At that point I could just drive to the clinic 15 minutes from my home. I maxed out a credit card to pay for it. And the procedure took all of 10 minutes. But the reality is today that most people have to travel long distances. They have a hard time paying for their abortions. And it’s simply inaccessible, despite it being legal. And that’s what we’re hoping to bring light to and show, that people are having challenges in accessing it.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to another clip of Ours to Tell, where each of the four people featured in the film reflects on why they chose to terminate their pregnancy.
HANNAH: So, these are some things that I wrote when I was 18 years old. “I believe that any person has freedom to do what they would like to their own body. And if timing is not right or the mother is not ready, then she should have the right to choose whether she would like to have a child or not, just as I did.”
BRITTANY: I found out I was pregnant in May. Something in me was always just like, “No. No, girl. This ain’t it. And you can move beyond it somehow.”
YLONDA: I just remember closing my eyes, praying, and just, before I knew it, the words were coming out, and I said, “I can’t, Doctor. I can’t.” I knew I was at peace with it. I knew my god was at peace with it. And I think it was one of the first major decisions I made with no consideration of anyone else. I knew that I needed to be the best mother that I could be to the children I had.
NICK: I was just not in a place where I could physically or emotionally handle a pregnancy, let alone a child. I was just in a position where I felt absolutely trapped and terrified, and I just would not have been able to handle it.
HANNAH: Even then, I knew that this wasn’t the life that I was like — I wasn’t myself yet. I wasn’t whole. I wasn’t ready to be a good parent.
AMY GOODMAN: Ours to Tell, just a clip from that. Renee Bracey Sherman, talk about who the people are in the film, and also storytelling as a form of resistance.
RENEE BRACEY SHERMAN: Absolutely. So, Brittany and Ylonda are two black moms, raising their children, who had abortions. Hannah is a Mexican woman. And Nick is a Houston trans person, living in Houston, talking about the resistance and the power of trans people having abortions.
And I think storytelling is extremely important in this time when we have the president going to the March for Life, denigrating us; we have the secretary of education denigrating black people who have abortions. Our voices need to be heard, and we are speaking out that we had abortions. We’re making this decision for ourselves. And that’s what’s most important.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much, Renee Bracey Sherman, award-winning activist, founder and executive director of We Testify, executive producer of the new short film Ours to Tell, which is also produced by Planned Parenthood. You can see the full film at OursToTell.org. And that does it for our first broadcast from Park City, from the Sundance Film Festival.


democracynow--2020-01-27--Under Pressure in Impeachment Trial, Trump Steps Up Attacks on Reproductive Rights

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
We are broadcasting from Park City , Utah .
On Friday , Democrats made — let me talk about what happened this past week , as we turn to the fight for reproductive rights , as the Trump administration launched an all-out assault on abortion .
On Friday , Democrats made the case for his removal from office in the Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend and address the annual so-called March for Life on the National Mall .
AMY GOODMAN : President Trump , who once described himself as “ pro-choice in every respect , ” accused Democrats of infanticide and falsely stated that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam supports an abortion bill that would , quote , “ execute a baby after birth.
” The annual anti-abortion march began in 1974 in response to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case ruling Roe v. Wade , which guaranteed the constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who opposed abortion considered the march too extreme and divisive to attend , and instead sent a surrogate or joined via video message .
The same day Trump addressed anti-abortion activists in Washington , his administration threatened to cut off some federal funding to California unless the state ends its requirement that private health insurers cover abortion .
California Governor Gavin Newsom said the state would not change its policy .
This followed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos comparing the anti-abortion movement to the fight to end slavery .
She reportedly told a crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , quote , “ [ Lincoln ] too contended with the pro-choice arguments of his day .
They suggested that a state ’ s choice to be slave or to be free had no moral question in it .
Lincoln was right about the slavery choice then , and he would be right about the life choice today.
” She went on to tell the audience that she wants to make abortion , quote , “ unconstitutional ” and “ unthinkable.
” In response , Massachusetts Congressmember Ayanna Pressley tweeted , quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black woman & the Chair of the abortion access task force , I invite you to come by the Hill and say this to my face .
Would welcome the opportunity to educate you , ” Pressley said .
Well , for more , still with us in Washington , D.C. , Fatima Goss Graves , president and CEO of the National Women ’ s Law Center .
Can you talk about President Trump setting precedent here , the first sitting president to address the so-called March for Life in Washington , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , there ’ s a reason that no other sitting president had actually attended that march .
It is so outside the mainstream , and it is filled with hateful rhetoric , hateful rhetoric around women , about reproductive justice .
That ’ s why they haven ’ t actually shown up in person .
And it also is a focal point .
So it ’ s a time to sort of amp up the rhetoric , which we saw all last week , and deliver harmful policy .
So this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , of impeachment , but it ’ s really , really sending a dangerous precedent going forward .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to turn to Tim Russert interviewing Donald Trump in 1999 , when he was considering a presidential run on the Reform Party ticket .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that was President Trump in 1999 .
Fatima Goss Graves , talk about the significance .
I mean , he ’ s saying , “ I am pro-choice in every way , ” and now he ’ s the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Life march in Washington .
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES : Right .
What a difference two decades makes in terms of his ability to play to his base .
That ’ s what this is about .
The irony is , seven in 10 people do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned .
So he is now out of step with the majority of people and has moved away from where most people are , both in 1999 , but certainly where they are right now .
AMY GOODMAN : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday , where the Education Secretary Betsy DeVos says she wants to make abortion “ unconstitutional ” and “ unthinkable ” and compared abortion to slavery ?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES : It ’ s outrageous .
I mean , it is both — it ’ s outrageous to really compare anything to slavery , but it is outrageous to especially compare abortion to slavery .
In order to do so , you have to fully ignore a key feature of slavery , which was reproductive coercion , both the rape that black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the forced childbirth , and then they could not even determine whether and how or where their children were raised .
So the insult of actually comparing abortion to slavery is just absurd for the secretary .
If the secretary was actually concerned about addressing the badges of slavery , she has the full authority to do so with her role as secretary of education .
She could be dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline .
She could be focusing on inequities by race and by gender in school .
You know , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to heap up this rhetoric this week , and this rhetoric itself is dangerous .
AMY GOODMAN : And then , the significance of what is taking place now in California ?
I mean , it looks like , a few weeks ago , as the impeachment trial was about to happen , you have President Trump assassinating the Iranian leader , Qassem Soleimani .
Now , as the impeachment trial is in full progress , unexpectedly for many , he announces he ’ s going to speak at the march , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you talk about the significance of saying they ’ ll cut federal funding for some programs if California continues to require private insurers to cover abortion ?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES : I should begin by saying that there is no basis in law for him to do this thing .
And the private insurers have said they don ’ t have a problem covering abortion .
The only people who have a problem with it are President Trump and his need to sort of ramp up the rhetoric this week , and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically — that want to take away the right to have abortion care covered by insurance plans .
But the results of this are going to be terrible for the state of California , if it actually were to go through .
He ’ s basically threatening to hold hostage billions of dollars , dollars that go to providing healthcare , dollars that are actually going to provide things like reducing maternal mortality , dealing with pregnancy in the full range of services that people need .
So these are harmful threats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they are only coming out right now because of a need to rally up a base .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Fatima Goss Graves , what ultimately gives you hope at this point ?
We ’ re in Utah .
The Legislature today is considering major cases around the so-called heartbeat bill .
It ’ s often seen as the testing ground for the rest of the country .
And yet you see tremendous grassroots activism , which we ’ re going to talk about right now in a moment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in this really interesting point in history where seven in 10 people do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned , and at the same time we have politicians who are trying to rally up their base and really roll back our rights in ways that are dangerous .
So now is not the time for people to sit on the sidelines on this issue .
People understand that our lives and our futures are really at stake .
And as states race to do things like ban abortion , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous situations , it ’ s time for everyone to come on the sidelines as we saw all that happen last year .
What we know is that they ’ re doing things that go directly against our Constitution .
They are not found valid under the law , and we have , fortunately , had courts saying that again and again .
But what we really need right now is also the people power to remind people that seven in 10 people do not want these steps to be taken .
AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you , Fatima Goss Graves , president and CEO of the National Women ’ s Law Center , who just flew from Park City , Utah , back to Washington , D.C .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We are broadcasting from Park City, Utah. On Friday, Democrats made — let me talk about what happened this past week, as we turn to the fight for reproductive rights, as the Trump administration launched an all-out assault on abortion. On Friday, Democrats made the case for his removal from office in the Senate. Just blocks away, President Trump became the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend and address the annual so-called March for Life on the National Mall.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It is my profound honor to be the first president in history to attend the March for Life. We’re here for a very simple reason: to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump, who once described himself as “pro-choice in every respect,” accused Democrats of infanticide and falsely stated that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam supports an abortion bill that would, quote, “execute a baby after birth.”
The annual anti-abortion march began in 1974 in response to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case ruling Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion. Past U.S. presidents who opposed abortion considered the march too extreme and divisive to attend, and instead sent a surrogate or joined via video message.
The same day Trump addressed anti-abortion activists in Washington, his administration threatened to cut off some federal funding to California unless the state ends its requirement that private health insurers cover abortion. California Governor Gavin Newsom said the state would not change its policy.
This followed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos comparing the anti-abortion movement to the fight to end slavery. She reportedly told a crowd at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, quote, “[Lincoln] too contended with the pro-choice arguments of his day. They suggested that a state’s choice to be slave or to be free had no moral question in it. Lincoln was right about the slavery choice then, and he would be right about the life choice today.” She went on to tell the audience that she wants to make abortion, quote, “unconstitutional” and “unthinkable.” In response, Massachusetts Congressmember Ayanna Pressley tweeted, quote, “Dear Betsy, As a Black woman & the Chair of the abortion access task force, I invite you to come by the Hill and say this to my face. Would welcome the opportunity to educate you,” Pressley said.
Well, for more, still with us in Washington, D.C., Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center.
Can you talk about President Trump setting precedent here, the first sitting president to address the so-called March for Life in Washington, and its significance?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: Well, there’s a reason that no other sitting president had actually attended that march. It is so outside the mainstream, and it is filled with hateful rhetoric, hateful rhetoric around women, about reproductive justice. That’s why they haven’t actually shown up in person. And it also is a focal point. So it’s a time to sort of amp up the rhetoric, which we saw all last week, and deliver harmful policy. So this is all happening in the context, of course, of impeachment, but it’s really, really sending a dangerous precedent going forward.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Tim Russert interviewing Donald Trump in 1999, when he was considering a presidential run on the Reform Party ticket.
TIM RUSSERT: Partial-birth abortion, the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester, big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?
DONALD TRUMP: Well, look, I’m — I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice. And again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in different parts of the country. And, you know, I was raised in New York and grew up and work and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion.
TIM RUSSERT: But you would not ban it?
DONALD TRUMP: No.
TIM RUSSERT: Or ban partial-birth abortion?
DONALD TRUMP: No. I would — I would — I am — I am pro-choice in every respect and as far as it goes. But I just hate it.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that was President Trump in 1999. Fatima Goss Graves, talk about the significance. I mean, he’s saying, “I am pro-choice in every way,” and now he’s the first sitting president ever to address the March for Life march in Washington.
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: Right. What a difference two decades makes in terms of his ability to play to his base. That’s what this is about. The irony is, seven in 10 people do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. So he is now out of step with the majority of people and has moved away from where most people are, both in 1999, but certainly where they are right now.
AMY GOODMAN: If you could then go to what happened on Wednesday, where the Education Secretary Betsy DeVos says she wants to make abortion “unconstitutional” and “unthinkable” and compared abortion to slavery?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: It’s outrageous. I mean, it is both — it’s outrageous to really compare anything to slavery, but it is outrageous to especially compare abortion to slavery. In order to do so, you have to fully ignore a key feature of slavery, which was reproductive coercion, both the rape that black women endured, the forced pregnancy, the forced childbirth, and then they could not even determine whether and how or where their children were raised. So the insult of actually comparing abortion to slavery is just absurd for the secretary. If the secretary was actually concerned about addressing the badges of slavery, she has the full authority to do so with her role as secretary of education. She could be dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. She could be focusing on inequities by race and by gender in school. You know, it is this March for Life that allowed them to heap up this rhetoric this week, and this rhetoric itself is dangerous.
AMY GOODMAN: And then, the significance of what is taking place now in California? I mean, it looks like, a few weeks ago, as the impeachment trial was about to happen, you have President Trump assassinating the Iranian leader, Qassem Soleimani. Now, as the impeachment trial is in full progress, unexpectedly for many, he announces he’s going to speak at the march, and then he goes after California. Can you talk about the significance of saying they’ll cut federal funding for some programs if California continues to require private insurers to cover abortion?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: I should begin by saying that there is no basis in law for him to do this thing. And the private insurers have said they don’t have a problem covering abortion. The only people who have a problem with it are President Trump and his need to sort of ramp up the rhetoric this week, and people who are not insurance — bosses, basically — that want to take away the right to have abortion care covered by insurance plans.
But the results of this are going to be terrible for the state of California, if it actually were to go through. He’s basically threatening to hold hostage billions of dollars, dollars that go to providing healthcare, dollars that are actually going to provide things like reducing maternal mortality, dealing with pregnancy in the full range of services that people need. So these are harmful threats. They are both anti-women and anti-life, and they are only coming out right now because of a need to rally up a base.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Fatima Goss Graves, what ultimately gives you hope at this point? We’re in Utah. The Legislature today is considering major cases around the so-called heartbeat bill. It’s often seen as the testing ground for the rest of the country. And yet you see tremendous grassroots activism, which we’re going to talk about right now in a moment.
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: Listen, we are in this really interesting point in history where seven in 10 people do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and at the same time we have politicians who are trying to rally up their base and really roll back our rights in ways that are dangerous. So now is not the time for people to sit on the sidelines on this issue. People understand that our lives and our futures are really at stake. And as states race to do things like ban abortion, to really do things that put people in dangerous situations, it’s time for everyone to come on the sidelines as we saw all that happen last year. What we know is that they’re doing things that go directly against our Constitution. They are not found valid under the law, and we have, fortunately, had courts saying that again and again. But what we really need right now is also the people power to remind people that seven in 10 people do not want these steps to be taken.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, who just flew from Park City, Utah, back to Washington, D.C.
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: I did.


democracynow--2020-01-27--Kobe Bryant Dead at 41: Remembering Basketball Star's Legacy On and Off the Court

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Basketball superstar Kobe Bryant died Sunday in a helicopter crash near Los Angeles at the age of 41 .
The crash killed all nine people on board , including Bryant ’ s 13-year-old daughter Gianna , known as Gigi , and the beloved college baseball coach John Altobelli and his wife Keri and their 13-year-old daughter Alyssa .
They were all heading to a youth basketball game .
Bryant won five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was crowned an All-Star 18 times .
He played for the L.A. Lakers for 20 years before retiring in 2016 , also known for being an ardent supporter of women ’ s basketball .
Gigi Bryant reportedly hoped to one day play for the University of Connecticut women ’ s basketball team .
Tributes continue to pour in on social media from fans , athletes and other public figures .
Musicians Alicia Keys and Lizzo remembered Kobe Bryant at the Grammys in Los Angeles Sunday night .
Thousands gathered outside the Staples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mourn his passing .
But some are also calling on the media and supporters not to forget the sexual assault allegation from early in his career .
In 2003 , a 19-year-old woman who worked at a hotel where Kobe Bryant was staying in Colorado accused him of rape .
Bryant denied the charge , saying they had a consensual encounter .
Authorities said the woman had injuries , quote , “ not consistent with consensual sex.
” [ Her ] blood was also found on his T-shirt .
The case was dropped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a civil suit was settled out of court .
In a statement , Bryant said in a 2004 quote , “ After months of reviewing discovery , listening to her attorney , and even her testimony in person , I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter , ” unquote .
The sexual assault allegations resurfaced in 2018 when Kobe Bryant ’ s film Dear Basketball won an Oscar for Best Animated Short at the 2018 Academy Awards .
Well , we ’ re joined now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports editor at The Nation magazine , also host of the Edge of Sports podcast , and Fatima Goss Graves , president and CEO of the National Women ’ s Law Center , among the co-founders of the Time ’ s Up Legal Defense Fund .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Dave , why don ’ t you start off by just talking about who Kobe Bryant was ?
DAVE ZIRIN : Well , no , absolutely .
Hello , Amy .
I think what people need to remember , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t quite understand the scale of grief and outpouring that ’ s taking place right now , is that Kobe Bryant first became part of the public consciousness at age 17 as a high school senior .
And he dies yesterday at the age of 41 .
That means for over half of Kobe Bryant ’ s life , he ’ s part of the public eye .
And I think there ’ s this tremendous association that people had with him and with his career .
I mean , Kobe Bryant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt passionate about .
Some people loved him , some people hated him .
Some people loved and hated him for things that happened on the court , some people for what happened off the court .
But over the course of his career , he not only excelled as a player — you know , he was an 18-time All-Star , for goodness ’ sakes — but he was also very much a global athlete .
His name was Kobe because his father was a basketball player , named Joe Bryant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was named after Kobe , Japan , where Kobe played .
Kobe grew up in Italy .
He spoke fluent Italian .
He spoke Spanish .
There ’ s a basketball player named Luka Doncic , and Kobe would speak to him in Slovenian .
So , Kobe had this global appeal , which has led to this outpouring of grief that we see today .
And for a lot of folks , you know , people just thought the second act of Kobe ’ s life was just getting started at age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor in the death of Gigi , as well , who had aspirations to be a basketball player in her own right , it ’ s almost like this future that people saw for Kobe was just erased in the blink of an eye .
And I think that ’ s what people are suffering with right now .
AMY GOODMAN : And can you talk more about his daughter , Gigi , who was also beloved and really got him into women ’ s basketball ?
He said he wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , after he retired .
DAVE ZIRIN : Well , he wasn ’ t watching any basketball after he finished .
He wanted to be the sort of athlete who didn ’ t hang around the game , but instead moved on to other challenges and other jobs .
He wanted to be a big creative producer out in Hollywood and a mogul , really .
And a lot of players were looking to Kobe to blaze that path as a mogul .
But then his daughter became a basketball obsessive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , obsessive in the best possible sense , just an absolute lover of the game .
And that brought Kobe back into the game , particularly into the sphere of women ’ s basketball .
He became a girls ’ basketball coach .
He became someone who , just this past last month , made news where he talked about that there are women who should be playing in the NBA right now and that he was going to be someone who took it upon himself to champion the WNBA going forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dreams .
There ’ s this amazing clip that ’ s going around of Kobe on a talk show and about someone coming up to Kobe and Gigi and saying to him , “ Oh , it would be amazing if you had a son , because your son could carry on your legacy , ” and Gigi actually stepping in and interrupting the conversation and saying , “ No , no .
I got this.
” AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , Gigi died in that helicopter crash , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened in 2003 , Dave Zirin ?
What happened in Colorado ?
DAVE ZIRIN : Well , I ’ ll be frank with you .
First and foremost , it ’ s difficult to discuss , because you want to give people space to mourn right now .
And I feel like there is going to be time to discuss all of this , but I also understand that this is part of Kobe ’ s legacy and it does need to be discussed .
In 2003 , Kobe was charged with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges were dropped when his accuser did not testify .
And Kobe ’ s lawyers absolutely engaged in a scorched-earth campaign against his accuser , that was so intense they actually changed the rape shield laws in Colorado , because they were so vicious towards her .
Now , part of the settlement that — the part of the deal that Kobe , in terms of the civil suit , of writing a very large check to make the charges go away , involved Kobe writing out an apology , that was read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did not think that his accuser had offered consent in their encounter .
And I have to tell you , like , speaking with — back then , in 2005 , that hadn ’ t really been seen before .
I mean , now , I think , it probably doesn ’ t — I don ’ t know how we would look at it in 2020 , in our era today .
But in 2005 , offering that statement , where he spoke about the issue of consent , I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work in restorative justice circles , they ’ ve used that statement as a way to speak about the importance of understanding consent and the importance of fighting sexual assault and rape culture .
AMY GOODMAN : So , I ’ d like to bring in Fatima Goss Graves here , president and CEO of the National Women ’ s Law Center , going back to that 2003 moment in Colorado , where the woman , authorities said , had injuries not consistent with consensual sex , her blood found on Kobe Bryant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement in the settlement that he made in 2004 — “ After months of reviewing discovery , listening to her attorney , and even her testimony in person , I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.
” If you can share your thoughts today on Kobe Bryant ’ s legacy ?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES : Well , I should begin by offering my condolence to his family , to his friends .
I was in college in L.A. when he first came to the Lakers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ And at the same time , we have to think about how it is that we talk about legacies .
It ’ s often too easy to erase the bad parts of legacy .
But in this moment , it ’ s especially important that we contextualize everything about his legacy , on and off the court , including the sexual violence , where the page was probably turned too soon .
I hope , 15 years later , when we think about this instance , we can think about it a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the survivors are feeling in this moment , as well .
DAVE ZIRIN : [ inaudible ] so beautifully and eloquently .
I have little to add , except that I think it ’ s very important that we keep in mind today and hold to our hearts the Bryant family , the Altobelli family , survivors and everybody who is processing this grief in their own way .
It ’ s important that we not police people ’ s grief .
It ’ s important instead that we listen to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is something that ’ s affecting people in a way that ’ s far broader than basketball .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , I want to thank you both for being with us .
And , Fatima Goss Graves , you ’ re going to be staying with us as we talk about what ’ s happened in this last week with the first sitting president in history to attend and address an anti-choice march , the major so-called March for Life in Washington .
Dave Zirin , thanks for being with us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fatima Goss Graves , president of the National Women ’ s Law Center .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. Basketball superstar Kobe Bryant died Sunday in a helicopter crash near Los Angeles at the age of 41. The crash killed all nine people on board, including Bryant’s 13-year-old daughter Gianna, known as Gigi, and the beloved college baseball coach John Altobelli and his wife Keri and their 13-year-old daughter Alyssa. They were all heading to a youth basketball game.
Bryant won five NBA championships, two Olympic gold medals, was crowned an All-Star 18 times. He played for the L.A. Lakers for 20 years before retiring in 2016, also known for being an ardent supporter of women’s basketball. Gigi Bryant reportedly hoped to one day play for the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team.
Tributes continue to pour in on social media from fans, athletes and other public figures. Musicians Alicia Keys and Lizzo remembered Kobe Bryant at the Grammys in Los Angeles Sunday night. Thousands gathered outside the Staples overnight — the Staples Center — to mourn his passing.
But some are also calling on the media and supporters not to forget the sexual assault allegation from early in his career. In 2003, a 19-year-old woman who worked at a hotel where Kobe Bryant was staying in Colorado accused him of rape. Bryant denied the charge, saying they had a consensual encounter. Authorities said the woman had injuries, quote, “not consistent with consensual sex.” [Her] blood was also found on his T-shirt. The case was dropped after the woman decided not to testify and a civil suit was settled out of court. In a statement, Bryant said in a 2004 quote, “After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter,” unquote. The sexual assault allegations resurfaced in 2018 when Kobe Bryant’s film Dear Basketball won an Oscar for Best Animated Short at the 2018 Academy Awards.
Well, we’re joined now by two people: Dave Zirin, sports editor at The Nation magazine, also host of the Edge of Sports podcast, and Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, among the co-founders of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Dave, why don’t you start off by just talking about who Kobe Bryant was?
DAVE ZIRIN: Well, no, absolutely. Hello, Amy. I think what people need to remember, particularly Democracy Now! listeners who don’t quite understand the scale of grief and outpouring that’s taking place right now, is that Kobe Bryant first became part of the public consciousness at age 17 as a high school senior. And he dies yesterday at the age of 41. That means for over half of Kobe Bryant’s life, he’s part of the public eye. And I think there’s this tremendous association that people had with him and with his career. I mean, Kobe Bryant was the kind of player that people felt passionate about. Some people loved him, some people hated him. Some people loved and hated him for things that happened on the court, some people for what happened off the court.
But over the course of his career, he not only excelled as a player — you know, he was an 18-time All-Star, for goodness’ sakes — but he was also very much a global athlete. His name was Kobe because his father was a basketball player, named Joe Bryant, who traveled the world, and Kobe was named after Kobe, Japan, where Kobe played. Kobe grew up in Italy. He spoke fluent Italian. He spoke Spanish. There’s a basketball player named Luka Doncic, and Kobe would speak to him in Slovenian. So, Kobe had this global appeal, which has led to this outpouring of grief that we see today.
And for a lot of folks, you know, people just thought the second act of Kobe’s life was just getting started at age 41. And I think when you factor in the death of Gigi, as well, who had aspirations to be a basketball player in her own right, it’s almost like this future that people saw for Kobe was just erased in the blink of an eye. And I think that’s what people are suffering with right now.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk more about his daughter, Gigi, who was also beloved and really got him into women’s basketball? He said he wasn’t even watching it, after he finished in 2016, after he retired.
DAVE ZIRIN: Well, he wasn’t watching any basketball after he finished. He wanted to be the sort of athlete who didn’t hang around the game, but instead moved on to other challenges and other jobs. He wanted to be a big creative producer out in Hollywood and a mogul, really. And a lot of players were looking to Kobe to blaze that path as a mogul.
But then his daughter became a basketball obsessive, not unlike her dad, you know, obsessive in the best possible sense, just an absolute lover of the game. And that brought Kobe back into the game, particularly into the sphere of women’s basketball. He became a girls’ basketball coach. He became someone who, just this past last month, made news where he talked about that there are women who should be playing in the NBA right now and that he was going to be someone who took it upon himself to champion the WNBA going forward. And Gigi was part of those dreams. There’s this amazing clip that’s going around of Kobe on a talk show and about someone coming up to Kobe and Gigi and saying to him, “Oh, it would be amazing if you had a son, because your son could carry on your legacy,” and Gigi actually stepping in and interrupting the conversation and saying, “No, no. I got this.”
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, Gigi died in that helicopter crash, as well. Can you talk now about what happened in 2003, Dave Zirin? What happened in Colorado?
DAVE ZIRIN: Well, I’ll be frank with you. First and foremost, it’s difficult to discuss, because you want to give people space to mourn right now. And I feel like there is going to be time to discuss all of this, but I also understand that this is part of Kobe’s legacy and it does need to be discussed. In 2003, Kobe was charged with sexual assault. In 2005, the charges were dropped when his accuser did not testify. And Kobe’s lawyers absolutely engaged in a scorched-earth campaign against his accuser, that was so intense they actually changed the rape shield laws in Colorado, because they were so vicious towards her.
Now, part of the settlement that — the part of the deal that Kobe, in terms of the civil suit, of writing a very large check to make the charges go away, involved Kobe writing out an apology, that was read in court, where Kobe acknowledged that he did not think that his accuser had offered consent in their encounter. And I have to tell you, like, speaking with — back then, in 2005, that hadn’t really been seen before. I mean, now, I think, it probably doesn’t — I don’t know how we would look at it in 2020, in our era today. But in 2005, offering that statement, where he spoke about the issue of consent, I know that for a lot of organizations that work in restorative justice circles, they’ve used that statement as a way to speak about the importance of understanding consent and the importance of fighting sexual assault and rape culture.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I’d like to bring in Fatima Goss Graves here, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, going back to that 2003 moment in Colorado, where the woman, authorities said, had injuries not consistent with consensual sex, her blood found on Kobe Bryant’s T-shirt, and then that statement in the settlement that he made in 2004 — “After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.” If you can share your thoughts today on Kobe Bryant’s legacy?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: Well, I should begin by offering my condolence to his family, to his friends. I was in college in L.A. when he first came to the Lakers. And it all seems too soon. And at the same time, we have to think about how it is that we talk about legacies. It’s often too easy to erase the bad parts of legacy. But in this moment, it’s especially important that we contextualize everything about his legacy, on and off the court, including the sexual violence, where the page was probably turned too soon. I hope, 15 years later, when we think about this instance, we can think about it a little bit differently. We can think about how the survivors are feeling in this moment, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Dave Zirin, your final thoughts?
DAVE ZIRIN: [inaudible] so beautifully and eloquently. I have little to add, except that I think it’s very important that we keep in mind today and hold to our hearts the Bryant family, the Altobelli family, survivors and everybody who is processing this grief in their own way. It’s important that we not police people’s grief. It’s important instead that we listen to what everybody has to say, because this is something that’s affecting people in a way that’s far broader than basketball.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us. And, Fatima Goss Graves, you’re going to be staying with us as we talk about what’s happened in this last week with the first sitting president in history to attend and address an anti-choice march, the major so-called March for Life in Washington. Dave Zirin, thanks for being with us, sports editor for The Nation magazine. Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-27--Explosive Bolton Book Allegations Spark New Calls for Witnesses to Testify at Impeachment Trial

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Calls are growing for the Senate to call witnesses in President Trump ’ s impeachment trial , after The New York Times published details about former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s forthcoming book .
In an unpublished draft of the book , Bolton writes that President Trump personally told him in August that he wanted to maintain a freeze on $ 391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to former Vice President Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bolton sent a draft of the book to the White House for review in December .
The Democratic House impeachment managers issued a statement saying , quote , “ There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President ’ s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump , ” unquote .
The New York Times broke the story Sunday , one day after President Trump ’ s legal team began its defense of the president at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s opening arguments , White House deputy counsel Mike Purpura claimed the Democratic case for impeachment is based on assumptions .
AMY GOODMAN : During Saturday ’ s opening argument , Trump ’ s attorney Pat Cipollone accused the Democrats of attempting to overturn an election .
AMY GOODMAN : Trump ’ s lawyers will continue their opening arguments today .
On Friday , the Democratic House impeachment managers wrapped up their three days of opening arguments .
This is Democratic Congressmember Adam Schiff , the chair of the House Intelligence Committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate impeachment trial , we ’ re joined by Dan Friedman , reporter in Mother Jones ’ D.C. bureau who focuses on foreign influence and national security .
His recent piece is headlined “ Trump ’ s Legal Team Opened Their Impeachment Defense with a Blizzard of Lies.
” And I want to go into that , Dan , but , first , this latest news that has just been released over the last 24 hours , The New York Times saying that Bolton , in his book manuscript , has said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was withholding military aid to Ukraine unless they would investigate the Bidens , as well , if you can talk about this , the significance of this ?
DAN FRIEDMAN : Sure , yeah .
I think a key argument that Trump ’ s lawyers have made is that there is no evidence , as I think some of your clips showed — they have argued that there is no evidence indicating that Trump linked the hold on aid to Ukraine to his push for Ukraine to announce these investigations that would help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that the aid was not related to his wish for investigations .
So , Bolton ’ s manuscript , as reported by the Times , completely blows up that claim .
It falsifies the sort of key , crux claim of their defense of him so far .
So it ’ s hard to overestimate how bad it is for Trump ’ s defense .
I would also point out that Mick Mulvaney , in public testimony , the White House chief of staff — excuse me , in his press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also said that he had direct conversations with Trump in which Trump linked the hold on aid to wanting Ukraine to announce investigations .
So , we shouldn ’ t forget that also Mulvaney could be a witness linking , connecting the push for aid to investigations .
So , the Senate is going to have an opportunity to vote on whether they want to subpoena Bolton , Mulvaney and others .
And obviously , the report from the Times makes that vote a lot harder from Republicans if they ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence .
AMY GOODMAN : So , talk about what this means and what Republicans you see — I mean , we ’ ll see today — will be — as they ’ re confronted with what Bolton is going to say .
And then also address the issue of executive privilege that President Trump will try to make .
And does that protect — is it a broad shield , or can that be challenged ?
And if Bolton himself , if subpoenaed , wants to testify , whether or not Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he wants ?
DAN FRIEDMAN : I think the short answer is they can assert executive privilege .
If the Senate subpoenas him , there is — for information that he has already reportedly put in the manuscript of a book that is going to be published for anyone to read — and , of course , there ’ s still a review process for that .
But nevertheless , it is a very difficult argument for them to make , and I think ultimately it ’ s a political question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive privilege , but with a Senate subpoena and Bolton wanting to testify , it ’ s very difficult to suppress that information .
The other point that I would make is , Trump , in his tweet , in which he denied that he had told Bolton that he wanted to hold the aid to force the investigations , is making the case for why Bolton should be subpoenaed .
If Trump is saying Bolton is lying , that is a very strong argument for why Bolton should be put under oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked whether it is true that Trump made this connection .
So , you know , the Republicans are going to have a hard time keeping Bolton from testifying , and I ’ m sure that they ’ ll try .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Dan , let ’ s go to what happened on Saturday .
The Democratic House managers wrapped up their arguments on Friday .
Talk about the gist of what you call the “ blizzard of lies , ” what the Trump defense team said in their first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time they actually used .
DAN FRIEDMAN : Yeah .
They did it all in just a few hours , and they managed to make a lot of claims that are false or deeply misleading .
One of the claims , which was in the clips you played , was that there was no link established between the hold on aid and investigations by Ukraine .
One problem with that , we just talked about , is that Bolton has now contradicted that .
Another problem with that is that they simply ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who they were quoting , linking a refusal to have a White House meeting with Ukraine ’ s president , Volodymyr Zelensky , to trying to force him to have these investigations that would help Trump politically .
So , Sondland , elsewhere in his testimony , said there was a quid pro quo , famously — it was a big deal — “ There was a quid pro quo , I am sure of that , linking ” — excuse me — “ linking a White House meeting to investigations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawyers didn ’ t say , “ Well , don ’ t pay attention to that .
It ’ s not as important.
” They just literally ignored it .
So , I think that goes to sort of the veracity of their argument overall .
Another argument they made is that the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on aid until , I think , September .
That also ignored public statements by the former deputy foreign minister from Ukraine , who said , “ We did know about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cooper , who ’ s a Defense Department official , who said that she also heard the Ukrainians were concerned about the hold on aid , back in July .
In both cases , they ’ re saying they knew about it in July .
So , those are , I think , two big examples , but , you know , there are a whole bunch of others .
They said that there is a — they talked about the call that Trump had with Zelensky , and repeatedly referred to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think anybody who ’ s paid attention to that knows it ’ s not actually a transcript .
There may be important parts of that testimony — that conversation that are not included in that memorandum of the conversation .
It ’ s a summary of what people who were listening remember .
So , there was just a lot of false and misleading claims to pick through , if you were watching on Saturday .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk more about ABC News obtaining that recording of what appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted the then-U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired , after speaking at a private gathering that included Lev Parnas ?
Let me go to that — AMY GOODMAN : Well , let me go , before you respond , Dan , to that clip .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that video was obtained from Lev Parnas ’ s attorney , Joseph Bondy .
It begins with Trump posing for photos , then entering a private dining room .
And halfway through the recording , one of the participants suggests Yovanovitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear Trump saying , “ Get rid of her .
Get her out tomorrow .
I don ’ t care .
Get her out tomorrow .
Take her out .
OK ?
Do it.
” And then the video , it ’ s sort of showing the ceiling .
But , Dan , just explain this whole thing .
DAN FRIEDMAN : Yeah .
I think , number one , Parnas and the guy who took the video , Igor Fruman , are associates of Rudy Giuliani , and they were kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was acting as an emissary of Giuliani , and then , since Giuliani is Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Trump — emissary of Trump himself , attempting to effectuate this scheme to get Ukraine to have these investigations , and , as part of that — excuse me — to get Marie Yovanovitch fired , the ambassador to Ukraine .
Trump , President Trump , has said that he doesn ’ t know Lev Parnas or Igor Fruman .
So , I think , quite clearly , he was lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t know them .
Here ’ s a video of them having a private meeting with him .
And that ’ s not all .
There ’ s pictures of them together on other occasions .
I think another important point about this meeting , which occurred in May of 2018 at the Trump Hotel , is that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were there because they had pledged to give a million dollars to a super PAC supporting Trump .
They wound up giving , a few weeks later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they set up in Delaware .
So , that is , I think , in many people ’ s assessment , pretty corrupt that they are able to influence U.S. policy toward Ukraine — which is in a war , of course — because they gave — pledged a million dollars to Trump ’ s super PAC and gave $ 325,000 .
In addition , they have been indicted in Manhattan for campaign finance violations that include allegations that they accepted money from foreign sources , including an unnamed Russian businessman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations in the United States to influence the U.S. political system .
So , we don ’ t know that this particular donation came from a foreign source , but we don ’ t know that it didn ’ t .
And it certainly creates the suspicion that foreign interests , for possibly someone in Ukraine who doesn ’ t — who is concerned that Marie Yovanovitch was an ardent opponent of corruption , and therefore was making it harder to do some kind of potentially corrupt business — a person like that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward Ukraine , through Parnas and Fruman , in this case .
And I think one thing it shows is that there is a lot more investigation to be done , whether it ’ s by the House , by the Senate , by the Department of Justice , to figure out what was going on , particularly since these events occurred a year before , more than — a little more than a year before most of the action that is at issue in the impeachment trial .
AMY GOODMAN : And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly , in 30 seconds , on what some have called the Epstein dream team , Trump ’ s — his team defending him being Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz ?
DAN FRIEDMAN : Yeah .
So , Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz are both , of course , very famous lawyers .
And I think that , obviously , the significant thing about Starr was that he was — oversaw the investigation into Bill Clinton ’ s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and related issues .
And Alan Dershowitz was a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who helped get him acquitted for murder .
Both of them have previously made arguments that are departures from what they will presumably be arguing this afternoon .
Dershowitz has said that you do not have to have committed a crime to be impeached .
Today Dershowitz has indicated that he will make the opposite argument .
Ken Starr , who was forced out of a job at Baylor University because the football team had a sexual harassment scandal , will be arguing against Trump ’ s removal from office , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Starr ’ s position when he was going after Clinton .
They will be , I think , really trying to make the case to the public .
And I think it is worth keeping in mind that even though their legal arguments may be dubious , they are going to be trying to give Republican senators and Trump supporters something to hang their hat on in terms of saying he shouldn ’ t be removed .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Dan Friedman , I want to thank you for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ D.C. bureau focusing on foreign policy and national security , covering Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
We ’ ll link to your piece , “ Trump ’ s Legal Team Opened Their Impeachment Defense with a Blizzard of Lies.
” When we come back , basketball legend Kobe Bryant dies in a helicopter crash with his 13-year-old daughter and seven others .
We ’ ll speak with The Nation ’ s Dave Zirin and Fatima Goss Graves .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Calls are growing for the Senate to call witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, after The New York Times published details about former national security adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book. In an unpublished draft of the book, Bolton writes that President Trump personally told him in August that he wanted to maintain a freeze on $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to former Vice President Joe Biden and supporters of Hillary Clinton in Ukraine. Bolton sent a draft of the book to the White House for review in December.
The Democratic House impeachment managers issued a statement saying, quote, “There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump,” unquote.
The New York Times broke the story Sunday, one day after President Trump’s legal team began its defense of the president at the impeachment trial. During Saturday’s opening arguments, White House deputy counsel Mike Purpura claimed the Democratic case for impeachment is based on assumptions.
MIKE PURPURA: In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland used variations of the words “assume,” “presume,” “guess,” “speculate” and “believe” over 30 times. Here are some examples.
GORDON SONDLAND: That was my presumption, my personal presumption. … That was my belief. … That was my presumption, yeah.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Is that right?
GORDON SONDLAND: I said I presume that might have to be done in order to get the aid released. … It was a presumption. … I’ve been very clear as to when I was presuming, and I was presuming on the aid. … It would be pure, you know, guesswork on my part, speculation, I don’t know. … That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.
MIKE PURPURA: All the Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations is Ambassador Sondland’s assumptions and presumptions.
AMY GOODMAN: During Saturday’s opening argument, Trump’s attorney Pat Cipollone accused the Democrats of attempting to overturn an election.
PAT CIPOLLONE: For all their talk about election interference, that they’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history. And we can’t allow that to happen. It would violate our Constitution. It would violate our history. It would violate our obligations to the future.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s lawyers will continue their opening arguments today. On Friday, the Democratic House impeachment managers wrapped up their three days of opening arguments. This is Democratic Congressmember Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: But let’s just try to step into someone else’s shoes for a moment. Let’s imagine it wasn’t Joe Biden. Let’s imagine it was any one of us. Let’s imagine the most powerful person in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into one of us. What would we think about it then? Would we think, “That’s good U.S. policy”? Would we think, “He has every right to do it”? Would we think, “That’s a perfect call”? … It shouldn’t have mattered that it was Marie Yovanovitch. It shouldn’t matter that it was Joe Biden, because, I’ll tell you something, the next time it just may be you.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the Senate impeachment trial, we’re joined by Dan Friedman, reporter in Mother Jones’ D.C. bureau who focuses on foreign influence and national security. His recent piece is headlined “Trump’s Legal Team Opened Their Impeachment Defense with a Blizzard of Lies.”
And I want to go into that, Dan, but, first, this latest news that has just been released over the last 24 hours, The New York Times saying that Bolton, in his book manuscript, has said that Trump directly told him that he was withholding military aid to Ukraine unless they would investigate the Bidens, as well, if you can talk about this, the significance of this?
DAN FRIEDMAN: Sure, yeah. I think a key argument that Trump’s lawyers have made is that there is no evidence, as I think some of your clips showed — they have argued that there is no evidence indicating that Trump linked the hold on aid to Ukraine to his push for Ukraine to announce these investigations that would help him politically. And Trump has also said that the aid was not related to his wish for investigations. So, Bolton’s manuscript, as reported by the Times, completely blows up that claim. It falsifies the sort of key, crux claim of their defense of him so far. So it’s hard to overestimate how bad it is for Trump’s defense.
I would also point out that Mick Mulvaney, in public testimony, the White House chief of staff — excuse me, in his press conference that he had back in October, also said that he had direct conversations with Trump in which Trump linked the hold on aid to wanting Ukraine to announce investigations. So, we shouldn’t forget that also Mulvaney could be a witness linking, connecting the push for aid to investigations. So, the Senate is going to have an opportunity to vote on whether they want to subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney and others. And obviously, the report from the Times makes that vote a lot harder from Republicans if they’re going to try to continue to suppress this evidence.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about what this means and what Republicans you see — I mean, we’ll see today — will be — as they’re confronted with what Bolton is going to say. And then also address the issue of executive privilege that President Trump will try to make. And does that protect — is it a broad shield, or can that be challenged? And if Bolton himself, if subpoenaed, wants to testify, whether or not Trump invokes executive privilege, can he say what he wants?
DAN FRIEDMAN: I think the short answer is they can assert executive privilege. If the Senate subpoenas him, there is — for information that he has already reportedly put in the manuscript of a book that is going to be published for anyone to read — and, of course, there’s still a review process for that. But nevertheless, it is a very difficult argument for them to make, and I think ultimately it’s a political question. So, they can attempt to assert executive privilege, but with a Senate subpoena and Bolton wanting to testify, it’s very difficult to suppress that information.
The other point that I would make is, Trump, in his tweet, in which he denied that he had told Bolton that he wanted to hold the aid to force the investigations, is making the case for why Bolton should be subpoenaed. If Trump is saying Bolton is lying, that is a very strong argument for why Bolton should be put under oath, under penalty of perjury, and asked whether it is true that Trump made this connection. So, you know, the Republicans are going to have a hard time keeping Bolton from testifying, and I’m sure that they’ll try.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dan, let’s go to what happened on Saturday. The Democratic House managers wrapped up their arguments on Friday. Talk about the gist of what you call the “blizzard of lies,” what the Trump defense team said in their first day of arguments, and how little time they actually used.
DAN FRIEDMAN: Yeah. They did it all in just a few hours, and they managed to make a lot of claims that are false or deeply misleading.
One of the claims, which was in the clips you played, was that there was no link established between the hold on aid and investigations by Ukraine. One problem with that, we just talked about, is that Bolton has now contradicted that. Another problem with that is that they simply ignored that there was testimony by Gordon Sondland, who they were quoting, linking a refusal to have a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to trying to force him to have these investigations that would help Trump politically. So, Sondland, elsewhere in his testimony, said there was a quid pro quo, famously — it was a big deal — “There was a quid pro quo, I am sure of that, linking” — excuse me — “linking a White House meeting to investigations.” And, you know, Trump’s lawyers didn’t say, “Well, don’t pay attention to that. It’s not as important.” They just literally ignored it. So, I think that goes to sort of the veracity of their argument overall.
Another argument they made is that the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on aid until, I think, September. That also ignored public statements by the former deputy foreign minister from Ukraine, who said, “We did know about it,” and also testimony by Laura Cooper, who’s a Defense Department official, who said that she also heard the Ukrainians were concerned about the hold on aid, back in July. In both cases, they’re saying they knew about it in July.
So, those are, I think, two big examples, but, you know, there are a whole bunch of others. They said that there is a — they talked about the call that Trump had with Zelensky, and repeatedly referred to it, the transcript of the call. I think anybody who’s paid attention to that knows it’s not actually a transcript. There may be important parts of that testimony — that conversation that are not included in that memorandum of the conversation. It’s a summary of what people who were listening remember. So, there was just a lot of false and misleading claims to pick through, if you were watching on Saturday.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk more about ABC News obtaining that recording of what appears to show President Trump saying that he wanted the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired, after speaking at a private gathering that included Lev Parnas? Let me go to that —
DAN FRIEDMAN: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me go, before you respond, Dan, to that clip.
LEV PARNAS: Germany is going behind our —
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Germany is not doing much.
UNIDENTIFIED 1: They’re supporting Russia.
LEV PARNAS: They’re supporting Russia.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You think so?
UNIDENTIFIED 2: Oh, I think so.
LEV PARNAS: A hundred percent, 100%.
UNIDENTIFIED 1: Two billion to pay Russia.
LEV PARNAS: A hundred percent, 100%.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It just makes no sense.
LEV PARNAS: It doesn’t, exactly. It doesn’t make sense.
UNIDENTIFIED 1: I’m sure they need support from you, President.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It makes no sense.
LEV PARNAS: A lot of the — exactly. A lot of the European countries, they’re backstabbing us, basically, and dealing with Russia. And that’s why you’re having such — I think if you take a look, the biggest problem there, I think, where we need to start is, we’ve got to get rid of the ambassador. She’s still left over from the Clinton administration.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Where? The ambassador where? Ukraine?
LEV PARNAS: Yeah. And she’s basically walking around telling everybody, “Wait. He’s going to get impeached. Just wait.”
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Really?
LEV PARNAS: It’s incredible. It’s like —
UNIDENTIFIED 3: She’ll be gone tomorrow.
LEV PARNAS: Yeah. Well —
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: What’s her name?
UNIDENTIFIED 1: I don’t remember the name.
LEV PARNAS: I don’t have her name off back.
UNIDENTIFIED 4: So, one of the things that will be, now that we have a secretary of state that’s been sworn in —
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK?
LEV PARNAS: Excellent.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Do it.
LEV PARNAS: Excellent.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that video was obtained from Lev Parnas’s attorney, Joseph Bondy. It begins with Trump posing for photos, then entering a private dining room. And halfway through the recording, one of the participants suggests Yovanovitch is posing problems, and you can hear Trump saying, “Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.” And then the video, it’s sort of showing the ceiling. But, Dan, just explain this whole thing.
DAN FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I think, number one, Parnas and the guy who took the video, Igor Fruman, are associates of Rudy Giuliani, and they were kind of running around Ukraine. As Parnas claimed, he was acting as an emissary of Giuliani, and then, since Giuliani is Trump’s personal lawyer, Trump — emissary of Trump himself, attempting to effectuate this scheme to get Ukraine to have these investigations, and, as part of that — excuse me — to get Marie Yovanovitch fired, the ambassador to Ukraine. Trump, President Trump, has said that he doesn’t know Lev Parnas or Igor Fruman. So, I think, quite clearly, he was lying, is lying, when he says he doesn’t know them. Here’s a video of them having a private meeting with him. And that’s not all. There’s pictures of them together on other occasions.
I think another important point about this meeting, which occurred in May of 2018 at the Trump Hotel, is that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were there because they had pledged to give a million dollars to a super PAC supporting Trump. They wound up giving, a few weeks later, $325,000 through a shell company that they set up in Delaware. So, that is, I think, in many people’s assessment, pretty corrupt that they are able to influence U.S. policy toward Ukraine — which is in a war, of course — because they gave — pledged a million dollars to Trump’s super PAC and gave $325,000. In addition, they have been indicted in Manhattan for campaign finance violations that include allegations that they accepted money from foreign sources, including an unnamed Russian businessman, and used that money to make campaign donations in the United States to influence the U.S. political system. So, we don’t know that this particular donation came from a foreign source, but we don’t know that it didn’t. And it certainly creates the suspicion that foreign interests, for possibly someone in Ukraine who doesn’t — who is concerned that Marie Yovanovitch was an ardent opponent of corruption, and therefore was making it harder to do some kind of potentially corrupt business — a person like that could quite easily be influencing U.S. policy toward Ukraine, through Parnas and Fruman, in this case.
And I think one thing it shows is that there is a lot more investigation to be done, whether it’s by the House, by the Senate, by the Department of Justice, to figure out what was going on, particularly since these events occurred a year before, more than — a little more than a year before most of the action that is at issue in the impeachment trial.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, if you can just comment quickly, in 30 seconds, on what some have called the Epstein dream team, Trump’s — his team defending him being Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz?
DAN FRIEDMAN: Yeah. So, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz are both, of course, very famous lawyers. And I think that, obviously, the significant thing about Starr was that he was — oversaw the investigation into Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and related issues. And Alan Dershowitz was a member of O.J. Simpson’s dream team, who helped get him acquitted for murder.
Both of them have previously made arguments that are departures from what they will presumably be arguing this afternoon. Dershowitz has said that you do not have to have committed a crime to be impeached. Today Dershowitz has indicated that he will make the opposite argument. Ken Starr, who was forced out of a job at Baylor University because the football team had a sexual harassment scandal, will be arguing against Trump’s removal from office, as well. That’s obviously inconsistent with Starr’s position when he was going after Clinton.
They will be, I think, really trying to make the case to the public. And I think it is worth keeping in mind that even though their legal arguments may be dubious, they are going to be trying to give Republican senators and Trump supporters something to hang their hat on in terms of saying he shouldn’t be removed.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dan Friedman, I want to thank you for being with us, reporter in Mother Jones’ D.C. bureau focusing on foreign policy and national security, covering Trump’s impeachment trial. We’ll link to your piece, “Trump’s Legal Team Opened Their Impeachment Defense with a Blizzard of Lies.”
When we come back, basketball legend Kobe Bryant dies in a helicopter crash with his 13-year-old daughter and seven others. We’ll speak with The Nation’s Dave Zirin and Fatima Goss Graves. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-27--Headlines for January 27, 2020

Headlines for January 27, 2020

As the historic impeachment trial of President Donald Trump continues this week , explosive new revelations about Trump ’ s decision to freeze aid to Ukraine emerged Sunday .
The New York Times reports former national security adviser John Bolton writes in his forthcoming book that Trump personally told him in August that he wanted to continue withholding nearly $ 400 million in security aid until Ukraine turned over materials related to former Vice President Joe Biden and supporters of Hillary Clinton in Ukraine .
The reports are based on a leaked manuscript of Bolton ’ s book .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deny the claims , writing , “ I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats , including the Bidens .
In fact , he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination .
If John Bolton said this , it was only to sell a book.
” This comes as Trump ’ s defense team is resuming their opening arguments today , after using just two hours of their allotted 24 hours Saturday .
White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not explicitly tie aid to the investigations , and accused Democrats of trying to “ overturn the results of the last election.
” This is Trump ’ s longtime personal lawyer Jay Sekulow speaking on the Senate floor Saturday .
Jay Sekulow : “ We really intend to show over the next several days that the evidence is actually really overwhelming that the president did nothing wrong .
… This case is really not about presidential wrongdoing .
This entire impeachment process is about the House managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read everybody ’ s thoughts , they can read everybody ’ s intention , even when the principal speakers , the witnesses themselves , insist that those interpretations are wrong.
” Senators are preparing to vote this week on whether new evidence and witnesses can be introduced in Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Four Republicans would need to side with Democrats and vote in favor of the move .
We ’ ll have more on the impeachment trial after headlines with Mother Jones reporter Dan Friedman .

As the historic impeachment trial of President Donald Trump continues this week, explosive new revelations about Trump’s decision to freeze aid to Ukraine emerged Sunday. The New York Times reports former national security adviser John Bolton writes in his forthcoming book that Trump personally told him in August that he wanted to continue withholding nearly $400 million in security aid until Ukraine turned over materials related to former Vice President Joe Biden and supporters of Hillary Clinton in Ukraine. The reports are based on a leaked manuscript of Bolton’s book. Trump took to Twitter shortly after midnight Monday to deny the claims, writing, “I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
This comes as Trump’s defense team is resuming their opening arguments today, after using just two hours of their allotted 24 hours Saturday. White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued that Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not explicitly tie aid to the investigations, and accused Democrats of trying to “overturn the results of the last election.”
This is Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Jay Sekulow speaking on the Senate floor Saturday.
Jay Sekulow: “We really intend to show over the next several days that the evidence is actually really overwhelming that the president did nothing wrong. … This case is really not about presidential wrongdoing. This entire impeachment process is about the House managers’ insistence that they are able to read everybody’s thoughts, they can read everybody’s intention, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong.”
Senators are preparing to vote this week on whether new evidence and witnesses can be introduced in Trump’s impeachment trial. Four Republicans would need to side with Democrats and vote in favor of the move. We’ll have more on the impeachment trial after headlines with Mother Jones reporter Dan Friedman.


democracynow--2020-01-28--Chinese Artist & Filmmaker Ai Weiwei on State Violence from Mexico to Hong Kong to Xinjiang

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
We ’ re broadcasting from Park City , Utah , from the Sundance Film Festival , as we continue to look at the legacy of state violence in Mexico , now through the devastating story of the Ayotzinapa 43 , the 43 students who disappeared in September of 2014 after they were brutally attacked and abducted by police forces in Iguala , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since .
More than five years after their disappearance , the families of the students are still fighting for justice .
Their struggle is the subject of a stunning new documentary by the world-renowned Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei .
It ’ s called Vivos .
It premiered here at Sundance .
I sat down with Ai Weiwei and asked him about why he made the film about the Ayotzinapa 43 .
So , we always think students or young people is the future of a society .
And how could that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ?
And what is after when people disappear , never comes back home ?
So , I have a very strong curiosity .
I think that will be a study case for me to understand Mexican culture , its past and its current situation .
And that ’ s how I got into — what got me into this filmmaking .
Certainly , this is a case which is not very uncommon in Mexico .
Disappearance and the violence happens every day .
And very few cases has been really solved .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been — they will never find justice in relation to those kind of very violent , very brutal killings .
AMY GOODMAN : So , in this case , though , with these 43 young students , they were going to a teachers ’ college , very progressive , deeply concerned about educating the poor in their country , many of them poor themselves .
They disappear .
Although you don ’ t focus on exactly what ’ s happened , it is very clear from your documentary that there was some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal and local and state police , and drug gangs .
Explain what you believe took place .
And then we ’ ll talk about your main emphasis , which was showing , in this slow-moving but riveting documentary , how it has integrated into the life of the Mayan people , the people who lost their loved ones .
So , that makes me really wonder , “ How could this happen in such a condition that the truth can not even come out ?
” But at the same time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases may look different , but it has similar — similar condition , because the truth never comes out .
And then , what I concerned is not just what happened , but what really happened as when someone never comes back home , and those people still alive and the consequence of this kind of injustice or the effect to the society and to the culture .
So that ’ s why the film is not a investigation type of a film , but rather to see the clear facts when children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their parents are , and what kind of effect when social justice is not achieved .
AI WEIWEI : The so-called war on drugs , it ’ s built the local government very powerful in terms of a military and the police .
And also it ’ s one of the cause of the huge corruption , because that become a moneymaking machine for the local government .
And that cause the corruption , the officials be connected with drug lords .
And they become — it functions as the local economy depends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs come to the market , which is the United States .
So , I think , in many ways , U.S. can not say they are not responsible in what happened in Mexico .
And many of their poverty are caused by us .
So , today , in this so-called globalization , and the U.S. or the West , its prosper condition is very much based on explore the conditions of the undeveloped nations .
The Mexican police , when they shoot those students , the guns they use is from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many things , you can immediately find traces of this rich nation ’ s benefit , profited from the property , from the people eager to make it .
And this continues , and , you know , with China , with many , many other nations .
You know , they dump all the pollutions and all the impossible , inhuman or no-protection labor market into those nations .
And at the same time , they are not supporting the democracy in those kind of states , because they know democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be profited .
AI WEIWEI : What we see today is Xinjiang has built huge camps for Uyghurs , and which can contains million , millions of Uyghurs .
And that ’ s the information we get from all kind of research or leaked papers .
But what we don ’ t know is that policy is since 1949 .
Communists start to get to the power .
They have this hidden policy , how to solve those minorities .
They call “ minorities ” different races , such as the Tibetans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the way they ’ re doing this is to try to send more Chinese people into those areas .
AI WEIWEI : It ’ s very even hard to explain .
Chinese government , they never can meet the challenge when we talk about the truth or fact .
They use all kind of other line or other language which would confuse the people .
So , at the beginning , they refused this ever even exist , to have these kind of camps .
Then , gradually , they said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that ’ s just for education , to help them to get new jobs or to help them to understand some kind of harmonious society.
” And then they say the leaked-out papers found out this is a very pragmatic or designed camp to try to really make the different races disappear .
Then they said , “ OK , they already ” — how do you say — “ graduated.
” Come on .
How many are they ?
Where are they ?
After graduation , you know , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you really openly to let international journalists to go in to really examine the situation ?
They would never do it .
AI WEIWEI : Yeah , that ’ s the present .
In this globalization , the capitalism developed into the maximum speed or scale , which they would never imagine in the colonial time .
You know , so , there , I think the capitalism really built the strongest possible relations with the authoritarian society .
And in today , the — we call it borders , is not real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at what those biggest companies or corporations , how they function , then you would realize so-called China and U.S. war , economics , or , how do you call , treaty war , which is really just a — it ’ s an illusion .
It ’ s not really possible , because , basically , China has bought so much economic — how do you say ?
The — AMY GOODMAN : Ai Weiwei , world-renowned Chinese artist and activist .
His documentary Vivos premiered here at the Sundance Film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on his first documentary , go to democracynow.org .
From Park City TV in Utah , I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from Park City, Utah, from the Sundance Film Festival, as we continue to look at the legacy of state violence in Mexico, now through the devastating story of the Ayotzinapa 43, the 43 students who disappeared in September of 2014 after they were brutally attacked and abducted by police forces in Iguala, Mexico. They have not been seen since. More than five years after their disappearance, the families of the students are still fighting for justice. Their struggle is the subject of a stunning new documentary by the world-renowned Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei. It’s called Vivos. It premiered here at Sundance. I sat down with Ai Weiwei and asked him about why he made the film about the Ayotzinapa 43.
AI WEIWEI: Well, I started with, I was invited for a art exhibition in Mexico. I was a bit hesitated, because I don’t know Mexico culture that much, and so I have to find a project which I can get myself involved and also to go different layers of the society, so I can learn the culture and what Mexican is about. So, by chance, I find out there’s 43 students disappeared. And that bothers me a lot, because I did a research in China, when I was in China, in Wenchuan earthquake. There’s also many, many students disappeared.
So, we always think students or young people is the future of a society. And how could that happen? And what really happened to them? And what is after when people disappear, never comes back home? So, I have a very strong curiosity. I think that will be a study case for me to understand Mexican culture, its past and its current situation. And that’s how I got into — what got me into this filmmaking. Certainly, this is a case which is not very uncommon in Mexico. Disappearance and the violence happens every day. And very few cases has been really solved. Over 90% of murder cases never been — they will never find justice in relation to those kind of very violent, very brutal killings.
AMY GOODMAN: So, in this case, though, with these 43 young students, they were going to a teachers’ college, very progressive, deeply concerned about educating the poor in their country, many of them poor themselves. They disappear. Although you don’t focus on exactly what’s happened, it is very clear from your documentary that there was some kind of collusion between the state, the federal and local and state police, and drug gangs. Explain what you believe took place. And then we’ll talk about your main emphasis, which was showing, in this slow-moving but riveting documentary, how it has integrated into the life of the Mayan people, the people who lost their loved ones.
AI WEIWEI: First, what I have learned is Mexico is a society which have very deep corruption, in terms of judicial corruption. And also, in this case, the local government and the police and also the army and the cartels, the crime family, they all are involved. They’re all part of this incident.
And this case involved — generates a great concern, because it’s such a special case. It relates to students, and it relates to the government. And so, internationally, there’s a lot of attention. And there has been a effort for investigation. But, of course, the investigation been stopped by the government. So, nobody know 'til today where those 43 students are. You know, there's a lot of different assumptions, but none of them really have a solid base.
So, that makes me really wonder, “How could this happen in such a condition that the truth cannot even come out?” But at the same time, you realize, in the world many cases may look different, but it has similar — similar condition, because the truth never comes out. And then, what I concerned is not just what happened, but what really happened as when someone never comes back home, and those people still alive and the consequence of this kind of injustice or the effect to the society and to the culture. So that’s why the film is not a investigation type of a film, but rather to see the clear facts when children not come back home, and who their parents are, and what kind of effect when social justice is not achieved.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you talk about the state, together with these drug gangs, what’s believed took place, and the United States. Can you talk about the effect of the “war on drugs” on the people of Mexico — the so-called war on drugs?
AI WEIWEI: The so-called war on drugs, it’s built the local government very powerful in terms of a military and the police. And also it’s one of the cause of the huge corruption, because that become a moneymaking machine for the local government. And that cause the corruption, the officials be connected with drug lords. And they become — it functions as the local economy depends on so-called drug wars. And other drugs come to the market, which is the United States. So, I think, in many ways, U.S. cannot say they are not responsible in what happened in Mexico.
AMY GOODMAN: You have both the crisis of what’s happening in Mexico, the U.S.-funded Mexican military and police that crack down on the Mexican people, and then you have the wall that the U.S. is trying to build on the border. You know well what walls mean. Of course, you come from China, the Great Wall of China. If you can talk about what the significance of this wall is that President Trump tries to build on the southern border?
AI WEIWEI: I think what the wall will build between U.S. and Mexico is really a symbolic one. We all know the wall cannot stop the poverty and cannot stop the peoples eager to have more freedom or have a freedom to choose their — to survive, to choose their location. So, what the wall really functions is a symbolic. It’s a wall building in our mind and heart, and to refuse to bear responsibility and refuse to share and refuse to have a compassion with those, you know, immediate neighbor.
And many of their poverty are caused by us. So, today, in this so-called globalization, and the U.S. or the West, its prosper condition is very much based on explore the conditions of the undeveloped nations. The Mexican police, when they shoot those students, the guns they use is from Germany. And, you know, so many things, you can immediately find traces of this rich nation’s benefit, profited from the property, from the people eager to make it. And this continues, and, you know, with China, with many, many other nations. You know, they dump all the pollutions and all the impossible, inhuman or no-protection labor market into those nations. And at the same time, they are not supporting the democracy in those kind of states, because they know democracy will not make them so easy to be profited.
AMY GOODMAN: You talk about Western nations profiting from areas that are less developed. You are making both your film — you’ve just finished your film in Mexico, and you’re now making another film, in Hong Kong. Explain what has brought you back to China, to Hong Kong, to do this film about the protests there.
AI WEIWEI: Hong Kong has started its protesting since last June. It’s already lasting for over half a year. Every weekend, sometimes even in the weekdays, Hong Kong young people are trying to demand their freedom and to demand the Chinese government not to imply its authoritarian practice into Hong Kong. So, that will be end of Hong Kong, so young people are very brave and very idealistic, almost like naive, because now, gradually, they become very educated. They know what kind of power they are facing. But they are so determined. Nothing can let them back off.
And this is a very beautiful revolution, I should say. It set a perfect example of the next generation on how they would fight with this kind of powerful state power. But, of course, they are being crushed. And people are missing. The bodies are found in the river. They jump out of window, and the brutal cover-up from the police part and the Hong Kong. Basically, the leader from Hong Kong is a puppet of our Chinese government. And the lady, she has refused any kind of conversation or real communication.
And so, this fight will continue, and it will go on. And there’s no way to solve it. On one side there is China, the very — the dictatorship, and they never use to negotiating, and they don’t care. If the whole Hong Kong being wiped out, they still would not care. But on the other side is young people who demand a very essential living condition, which is their freedom. It’s not asking for other things.
So, of course, it so much relate to my struggle. And I send my team there from the very beginning, and they’ve covered the whole struggle, and it’s still going on. So we are trying to give the moral support and to save those images and to try to come out from — make a film about it, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what you understand is happening in Xinjiang province now with the Uyghurs, what we understand and what we don’t understand.
AI WEIWEI: What we see today is Xinjiang has built huge camps for Uyghurs, and which can contains million, millions of Uyghurs. And that’s the information we get from all kind of research or leaked papers. But what we don’t know is that policy is since 1949. Communists start to get to the power. They have this hidden policy, how to solve those minorities. They call “minorities” different races, such as the Tibetans, Uyghurs or even the Mongolian people. And the way they’re doing this is to try to send more Chinese people into those areas.
AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a column for The New York Times called “Capitalism and 'Culturecide': The idea of 'cultural differences' has been used as a justification for some of humanity’s worst crimes.” But you say it’s actually not so distant. You talk about The New York Times publishing these 400 pages of internal government documents on the rationale and techniques of this “culturecide,” Beijing denying the existence of the camps, but it never claimed that the documents were inauthentic. It announced the trainees in its re-education centers have all graduated. What does that mean?
AI WEIWEI: It’s very even hard to explain. Chinese government, they never can meet the challenge when we talk about the truth or fact. They use all kind of other line or other language which would confuse the people. So, at the beginning, they refused this ever even exist, to have these kind of camps. Then, gradually, they said, “Yes, there’s camps, but that’s just for education, to help them to get new jobs or to help them to understand some kind of harmonious society.” And then they say the leaked-out papers found out this is a very pragmatic or designed camp to try to really make the different races disappear. Then they said, “OK, they already” — how do you say — “graduated.” Come on. How many are they? Where are they? After graduation, you know, do you have a name? Or can you really openly to let international journalists to go in to really examine the situation? They would never do it.
AMY GOODMAN: What does “culturecide” mean?
AI WEIWEI: “Culturecide” means many things. I think it means trying to — can mean trying to destroy a culture or trying to mock a culture in different — to hide the discriminate or racist act, with the argument to make a control or to make they disappear.
AMY GOODMAN: And you talk about how culturecide is converging with predatory capitalism. You say, “Multinational corporations including Volkswagen, Siemens, Unilever and Nestlé have factories there. Supply chains for Muji and Uniqlo depend on Xinjiang, and companies such as H&M, Esprit and Adidas use Xinjiang cotton. We might ask: What is it about this remote place, to which the emperors of old banished criminals in lieu of sending them to prison, that makes it so attractive?”
AI WEIWEI: Yeah, that’s the present. In this globalization, the capitalism developed into the maximum speed or scale, which they would never imagine in the colonial time. You know, so, there, I think the capitalism really built the strongest possible relations with the authoritarian society. And in today, the — we call it borders, is not real borders. You know, if we look at what those biggest companies or corporations, how they function, then you would realize so-called China and U.S. war, economics, or, how do you call, treaty war, which is really just a — it’s an illusion. It’s not really possible, because, basically, China has bought so much economic — how do you say? The —
AMY GOODMAN: Benefit?
AI WEIWEI: Not only benefit. It’s very much integrated with U.S. economy. You know, the treasurer and the bank, all those things, there are Chinese investments in there. So you cannot even really say we can separate.
AMY GOODMAN: Ai Weiwei, world-renowned Chinese artist and activist. His documentary Vivos premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. To see our previous interview, on his first documentary, go to democracynow.org. From Park City TV in Utah, I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.