democracynow--2020-02-05--Publisher Agrees to Boost Latinx Representation After Backlash to Whitewashed Novel "American Dirt"

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : We end today ’ s show looking at the massive backlash and criticism against the novel American Dirt , as a movement led by Latinx writers declare victory , demanding more representation in the publishing industry .
The campaign is called Dignidad Literaria , “ literary dignity ” in English .
It formed in response to the controversial novel American Dirt .
The author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican , received a seven-figure advance for the book , and it was chosen for Oprah ’ s Book Club .
But its critics say American Dirt exploits and misrepresents Mexico and the experience of Mexican migrants .
Critics also say the novel completely erases the voices of Central Americans , who actually make up the largest number of asylum seekers currently fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , on Monday , the leaders of the literary dignity movement celebrated a successful meeting in New York City with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the owner of Flatiron Books .
The publisher agreed to expand Latinx representation in its staff and publications .
The campaign is also calling for an investigation into discriminatory practices in the publishing industry at large .
For more , we ’ re joined by the co-founders of the literary dignity movement .
From Los Angeles , we ’ re joined by Myriam Gurba , a Chicana writer , podcaster , artist , her most recent book titled Mean , a memoir about Gurba ’ s sexual assault , as well as her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mixed-race Chicana growing up in Southern California .
She also wrote the first viral review of American Dirt that ignited criticism of the book .
And here in New York , we are continuing with Roberto Lovato , award-winning journalist , author of the forthcoming book Unforgetting : A Memoir of Revolution and Redemption .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Myriam , let ’ s begin with you .
Tell us how this all began .
MYRIAM GURBA : This began when I got an email from Ms. magazine asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I agreed to do so .
It was indicated to me that the title that I would be reviewing was American Dirt by a woman named Jeanine Cummins .
I had no idea what American Dirt was .
I had never heard of it .
Given the title , I thought it was a book about agriculture .
And given the blurb on the book jacket referencing Grapes of Wrath , again , I thought it was about agriculture .
The book arrived .
I took it with me to Mexico .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my family there .
And I dove into the book and immediately got very , very angry .
And the book ruined my Mexican vacation .
So , I read the book while there .
I came back to the United States .
I wrote my review .
I sent it to Ms. And then Ms. responded that the takedown , while it was , quote-unquote , “ spectacular , ” I wasn ’ t famous enough to write something so negative .
The email also said that Ms. magazine doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for negative reviews , period , that they would rather steer their readers toward more positive reads .
And that annoyed the crap out of me , and so I decided to publish the review myself and then eventually write an essay about the entire experience , which was published on Tropics of Meta .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : You subsequently learned that the publishing industry was all abuzz , about this was going to be a breakthrough , a breakthrough book , about the huge contract .
How did that affect even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GURBA : It grossed me out .
It grossed me out that this novel was being constructed as a blockbuster .
Its best-seller status was preordained .
It was an anointed work .
And as an anointed work , I got to observe all this machinery come into place in order to elevate the book and prop it up .
And for me , the book has really revealed how big publishing and the big five work .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what were the main concerns , if you could summarize , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems you found with the book ?
MYRIAM GURBA : OK , first and foremost , it ’ s a poorly written book .
It just — the prose is shaky .
When I say that the book is Frankensteinesque , I don ’ t only mean that Cummins reached for tropes and sensibilities that she had no command of , and then blended them and mixed them all together .
The book is Frankensteinish just at a structural level and its level of , like , lexicon and syntax .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And then , to add to that , the folks represented by the book , the brown folks in the book , are paper dolls .
They ’ re paper dolls that are there in order to advance a plot and in order to advance an allegory .
And that allegory is United States of America good , Mexico bad .
And Mexico isn ’ t even Mexico .
Mexico is anything south of the U.S. border , as far as this book is concerned .
Everybody brown sort of flattens into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s turn to the renowned Mexican writer Sandra Cisneros being interviewed by Maria Hinojosa on NPR ’ s Latino USA last week .
Cisneros has been widely criticized for endorsing American Dirt .
Here she addresses why she supports the number one New York Times best-seller .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Sandra Cisneros .
But there was a major protest outside the offices of Flatiron Books , which is owned by Macmillan , on Monday .
You all , Myriam and Roberto , had a meeting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And one of the claims was that the publisher canceled the book tour for Cummins because she was receiving death threats .
What did you find out in the meeting ?
ROBERTO LOVATO : We found out that the Latino community in the United States is capable of exerting its voice and its power to enter the national dialogue that we ’ ve been excluded from through most of the history of the United States .
This was a historic victory with material and political and cultural effects .
And there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in a room , a top executive , not just of Flatiron , but Macmillan , one of the most powerful publishing entities in the world , coming to meet with the leader of this movement , that is this five-foot schoolteacher , a little taller with her heels , but who — Myriam , who sparked all of our imaginations to act on this .
And so I was moved by that , and I decided , along with our other colleague , David Bowles , who requires mention here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dignity .
I think what you ’ re seeing is nothing less than the decline and fall of the — what I call the folklórico-industrial complex of U.S. Latino literature .
I think the cartoonish images of Latinos in the United States are starting to be dead .
And I think the guarantors of that , you can find them on # DignidadLiteraria .
And so , during the meeting , which had moments of tension and moments of agreement , we actually , you know , wrote out a collective — an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — if I may read it ?
That would substantially increase — “ increasing Latinx representation across Macmillan , including authors , titles , staff and its overall … ecosystem.
” Now , this has never happened in the annals of U.S. Latino literature .
AMY GOODMAN : This is what you ’ ve agreed to with Macmillan .
ROBERTO LOVATO : This is what ’ s been agreed to , in addition to developing an action plan to address these objectives within 90 days and to regroup within 30 days with Dignidad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress .
And so , we were in the room with some very serious executives , who very much noticed the explosion of the Latino community in a brilliant critique like Myriam ’ s and David ’ s and others ’ and also in action , because a lot of us never learned to make the artificial distinction between , say , poetry and politics .
A lot of us are poet warriors , let ’ s say .
And so , we went in , and we came out with a success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be held accountable by the Latino community , who are the ultimate guarantors of this .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Myriam , your response to the meeting ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And we have about a minute .
Your response to how Macmillan is dealing with the crisis ?
MYRIAM GURBA : I mean , I went in there to tell them like , “ Look , you guys said you wanted to build a bridge , and you failed .
You guys built a wall instead .
So , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , this silly Reaganesque term , 'tearing down that wall . '
You guys built it .
Latinos know how to work .
Let us tear down that wall .
And let ’ s help you build that bridge , that you initially said that you wanted to construct to begin with and you got it all wrong .
We know a thing or two about intellectual infrastructure , as well as manual labor.
” And then the other thing that was really startling during that meeting was that folks in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death threats .
And I was able to express to executives that I indeed was the critic who had been receiving numerous death threats throughout this entire process .
AMY GOODMAN : Do you feel — how are you going to follow up on this meeting ?
MYRIAM GURBA : We have several check-in dates in place .
So , there is supposed to be a 30-day progress report .
And when that 30-day progress report is issued , we ’ re going to release it publicly .
And then there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we want to thank you both for being with us .
We ’ ll continue to follow this story .
Myriam Gurba and Roberto Lovato , co-founders of Dignidad Literaria , the literary dignity movement .
And that does it for our show .
Democracy Now !
is accepting applications for a paid , year-long news production fellowship here in New York .
Learn more and apply at democracynow.org .
Democracy Now !
is produced by Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Nermeen Shaikh , Carla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sam Alcoff , John Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud , Charina Nadura , Tey-Marie Astudillo , Adriano Contreras and María Taracena .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We end today’s show looking at the massive backlash and criticism against the novel American Dirt, as a movement led by Latinx writers declare victory, demanding more representation in the publishing industry. The campaign is called Dignidad Literaria, “literary dignity” in English. It formed in response to the controversial novel American Dirt. The author, Jeanine Cummins, who is not Mexican, received a seven-figure advance for the book, and it was chosen for Oprah’s Book Club. But its critics say American Dirt exploits and misrepresents Mexico and the experience of Mexican migrants. Critics also say the novel completely erases the voices of Central Americans, who actually make up the largest number of asylum seekers currently fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, on Monday, the leaders of the literary dignity movement celebrated a successful meeting in New York City with the book’s publisher, Macmillan, the owner of Flatiron Books. The publisher agreed to expand Latinx representation in its staff and publications. The campaign is also calling for an investigation into discriminatory practices in the publishing industry at large.
For more, we’re joined by the co-founders of the literary dignity movement. From Los Angeles, we’re joined by Myriam Gurba, a Chicana writer, podcaster, artist, her most recent book titled Mean, a memoir about Gurba’s sexual assault, as well as her coming of age as a queer, mixed-race Chicana growing up in Southern California. She also wrote the first viral review of American Dirt that ignited criticism of the book. And here in New York, we are continuing with Roberto Lovato, award-winning journalist, author of the forthcoming book Unforgetting: A Memoir of Revolution and Redemption.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Myriam, let’s begin with you. Tell us how this all began.
MYRIAM GURBA: This began when I got an email from Ms. magazine asking me to pen a review for them. I agreed to do so. It was indicated to me that the title that I would be reviewing was American Dirt by a woman named Jeanine Cummins. I had no idea what American Dirt was. I had never heard of it. Given the title, I thought it was a book about agriculture. And given the blurb on the book jacket referencing Grapes of Wrath, again, I thought it was about agriculture.
The book arrived. I took it with me to Mexico. I was on a Thanksgiving break visiting my family there. And I dove into the book and immediately got very, very angry. And the book ruined my Mexican vacation. So, I read the book while there. I came back to the United States. I wrote my review. I sent it to Ms.
And then Ms. responded that the takedown, while it was, quote-unquote, “spectacular,” I wasn’t famous enough to write something so negative. The email also said that Ms. magazine doesn’t like to make room in its pages for negative reviews, period, that they would rather steer their readers toward more positive reads. And that annoyed the crap out of me, and so I decided to publish the review myself and then eventually write an essay about the entire experience, which was published on Tropics of Meta.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You subsequently learned that the publishing industry was all abuzz, about this was going to be a breakthrough, a breakthrough book, about the huge contract. How did that affect even more your response to this novel?
MYRIAM GURBA: It grossed me out. It grossed me out that this novel was being constructed as a blockbuster. Its best-seller status was preordained. It was an anointed work. And as an anointed work, I got to observe all this machinery come into place in order to elevate the book and prop it up. And for me, the book has really revealed how big publishing and the big five work.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what were the main concerns, if you could summarize, the objections that you found or the problems you found with the book?
MYRIAM GURBA: OK, first and foremost, it’s a poorly written book. It just — the prose is shaky. When I say that the book is Frankensteinesque, I don’t only mean that Cummins reached for tropes and sensibilities that she had no command of, and then blended them and mixed them all together. The book is Frankensteinish just at a structural level and its level of, like, lexicon and syntax. It’s just — it’s sloppy.
And then, to add to that, the folks represented by the book, the brown folks in the book, are paper dolls. They’re paper dolls that are there in order to advance a plot and in order to advance an allegory. And that allegory is United States of America good, Mexico bad. And Mexico isn’t even Mexico. Mexico is anything south of the U.S. border, as far as this book is concerned. Everybody brown sort of flattens into one faceless mass.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to the renowned Mexican writer Sandra Cisneros being interviewed by Maria Hinojosa on NPR’s Latino USA last week. Cisneros has been widely criticized for endorsing American Dirt. Here she addresses why she supports the number one New York Times best-seller.
MARIA HINOJOSA: Did you know Jeanine Cummins before you got American Dirt?
SANDRA CISNEROS: No, I — you know, nothing. I did not know her at all. I just know the stories. You know, reading this book, I said, OK, it had a great resonance for me. And I knew the amount of work that it took to read this from testimonial and to make it into a novel that moves from the first page. You know, it has to — a novel is different from a piece of journalism or piece of nonfiction. It’s different from a script. You know, it has its own engine, and it’s got to roar from page one. And it did that for me.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Sandra Cisneros. But there was a major protest outside the offices of Flatiron Books, which is owned by Macmillan, on Monday. You all, Myriam and Roberto, had a meeting. Can you describe this meeting on Monday? And one of the claims was that the publisher canceled the book tour for Cummins because she was receiving death threats. What did you find out in the meeting?
ROBERTO LOVATO: We found out that the Latino community in the United States is capable of exerting its voice and its power to enter the national dialogue that we’ve been excluded from through most of the history of the United States. This was a historic victory with material and political and cultural effects. And there’s no precedent when you have 13 people in a room, a top executive, not just of Flatiron, but Macmillan, one of the most powerful publishing entities in the world, coming to meet with the leader of this movement, that is this five-foot schoolteacher, a little taller with her heels, but who — Myriam, who sparked all of our imaginations to act on this. And so I was moved by that, and I decided, along with our other colleague, David Bowles, who requires mention here, to launch Dignidad Literaria to elevate the dignity. I think what you’re seeing is nothing less than the decline and fall of the — what I call the folklórico-industrial complex of U.S. Latino literature. I think the cartoonish images of Latinos in the United States are starting to be dead. And I think the guarantors of that, you can find them on #DignidadLiteraria.
And so, during the meeting, which had moments of tension and moments of agreement, we actually, you know, wrote out a collective — an agreement, basically. And let me — if I may read it? That would substantially increase — “increasing Latinx representation across Macmillan, including authors, titles, staff and its overall … ecosystem.” Now, this has never happened in the annals of U.S. Latino literature.
AMY GOODMAN: This is what you’ve agreed to with Macmillan.
ROBERTO LOVATO: This is what’s been agreed to, in addition to developing an action plan to address these objectives within 90 days and to regroup within 30 days with Dignidad Literaria and other Latinx groups to assess progress. And so, we were in the room with some very serious executives, who very much noticed the explosion of the Latino community in a brilliant critique like Myriam’s and David’s and others’ and also in action, because a lot of us never learned to make the artificial distinction between, say, poetry and politics. A lot of us are poet warriors, let’s say. And so, we went in, and we came out with a success that’s measurable and that will be held accountable by the Latino community, who are the ultimate guarantors of this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Myriam, your response to the meeting?
MYRIAM GURBA: Yes.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And we have about a minute. Your response to how Macmillan is dealing with the crisis?
MYRIAM GURBA: I mean, I went in there to tell them like, “Look, you guys said you wanted to build a bridge, and you failed. You guys built a wall instead. So, we are here as Latinos to offer our assistance in, this silly Reaganesque term, 'tearing down that wall.' You guys built it. Latinos know how to work. Let us tear down that wall. And let’s help you build that bridge, that you initially said that you wanted to construct to begin with and you got it all wrong. We know a thing or two about intellectual infrastructure, as well as manual labor.”
And then the other thing that was really startling during that meeting was that folks in that room admitted that Cummins had received no death threats. And I was able to express to executives that I indeed was the critic who had been receiving numerous death threats throughout this entire process.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel — how are you going to follow up on this meeting?
MYRIAM GURBA: We have several check-in dates in place. So, there is supposed to be a 30-day progress report. And when that 30-day progress report is issued, we’re going to release it publicly. And then there’s also a 90-day check-in point, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for being with us. We’ll continue to follow this story. Myriam Gurba and Roberto Lovato, co-founders of Dignidad Literaria, the literary dignity movement.
And that does it for our show. Democracy Now! is accepting applications for a paid, year-long news production fellowship here in New York. Learn more and apply at democracynow.org.
Democracy Now! is produced by Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Nermeen Shaikh, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Libby Rainey, Sam Alcoff, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Charina Nadura, Tey-Marie Astudillo, Adriano Contreras and María Taracena.
Happy Birthday, Arthur Alcoff!
I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.


democracynow--2020-02-05--Roberto Lovato: Dems & GOP Share Same Playbook on Immigration, Foreign Policy & Corporate Domination

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Trump also had much to say about immigration .
And I wanted — let ’ s see if we have that clip , when he talks in his State of the Union .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : That was President Trump last night .
We ’ re joined now by Roberto Lovato , award-winning journalist .
Roberto , your take on the president ’ s remarks last night about immigration , and also not only about immigration , but supposedly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a result of sanctuary cities permitting undocumented immigrants who were jailed by local — from ICE detainers ?
ROBERTO LOVATO : It ’ s become predictable .
If you look at last year ’ s State of the Union address , it ’ s some of the same tropes , same criminals , same immigrants , stealing jobs .
I mean , this is tried-and-true for them , and the Republicans are going to use it because it works for them .
And Trump is also playing to the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offer on immigration .
Nancy Pelosi may have ripped the speech , but they both draw from the same playbook on issues like immigration , foreign policy , corporate domination .
And so , Trump knows that .
And something that was clear to me , for example , was that Trump didn ’ t say anything about El Paso — right ?
— where you had all these Latinos that were murdered , mass murdered , by a white killer who was inspired by Trump ’ s rhetoric and that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you didn ’ t have any of those victims in the audience .
You know , you had other victims .
And we ’ re in a very dangerous time .
And I think that immigration helped Trump get started , and he ’ s going back to it because it works for him .
And it puts the Democrats in the uncomfortable position , for example , of hiding the fact that when it comes to things like mass deportations , when it comes to things like caging children , when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children from their mothers by the thousands , this was Barack Obama that started us on that path , not Donald Trump .
And so , you know , you see it when , in the Iowa — in the Democratic debate , all the candidates run like rats when the lights go on , when it comes to Barack Obama .
They don ’ t want to touch him , because people , especially in the Latino community , know .
We have the receipts of what happened with immigration and Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he ’ s playing that card that shows that they have nothing to offer .
AMY GOODMAN : And this whole issue , as he was talking about “ criminal aliens , ” all the studies show that people who are not native-born are less likely to commit crimes , whether violent or nonviolent .
And interestingly , as he touted the wall , just a few weeks ago , newly installed panels from the U.S. border wall fell over — this was from California — into Mexico , two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ROBERTO LOVATO : Yeah .
The wall is symbolic not just of immigration .
I think it ’ s the closing of the U.S. mind .
And that ’ s the trap that I think the Democrats have fallen into , that they ’ ve played to anti-immigrant sentiment , except instead of saying racist tropes , they ’ ve said , ” Sí , se puede.
” At a material level , at the level of the immigrant body , the tortured , the starved , dehydrated , the dead child at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s not that much of a statistical difference between Obama and Trump .
And so , Trump knows — Trump ’ s strategists know what they ’ re doing when they ’ re deploying immigration as an electoral tactic and part of the core strategy .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : President Trump also talked last night about Venezuela , a subject over which he hasn ’ t been saying much in the last several months .
But this is what he said last night .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And the president then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the gallery and stood up and got applause from both Democrats and — I mean , not only Republicans , but , from what I can see , from most Democrats , as well .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s right .
There ’ s Nancy Pelosi on the podium right behind Trump , who , within minutes , would be ripping up his speech , standing up and applauding .
ROBERTO LOVATO : This is why I started off my comments talking about the way that the Democrats use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the core level of , say , foreign policy , militarism and staging coups and economic neoliberalism , there isn ’ t that much of a great difference , which is what I think the Sanders threat brings to both parties , because the Democrats are in check .
I mean , I look at the irregularities , for example , in Iowa .
I ’ m looking at a president who has been impeached , and I look at the appointment of a foreign leader by fiat , by tweet , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s harkening back to kind of a digital age Latin American dictatorship .
We ’ re watching what I would call the latinoamericanización of U.S. politics , when you have the division between rich and poor being so stark .
And so , Guaidó ’ s being there is just their continued efforts to prop up this failed most recent coup attempt , that ’ s been going on almost 20 years in Venezuela .
I ’ ve been on the show here with both of you and talked about Leopoldo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eminence behind the throne of the Venezuelan right , of the extreme right , because the Venezuelan opposition is vast .
It ’ s broad .
And the U.S. and Elliott Abrams , who I know from El Salvador and his support for mass murderers of children in places like El Mozote , is supporting the most extreme elements .
And so , you have here the introduction of Guaidó to prop him up , but also , I think , to play against Bernie Sanders and the socialist theme .
You heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the term , just like he repeated the tropes of civilizational warfare , civilization .
He even said the word “ barbarians.
” So you have terrorists , immigrants , criminals — all these codewords , all this red meat , as Lee Fang said , being used for the base .
I mean , again , both Democrats and Republicans play to these themes in different ways , except that , for example — I mean , they both draw from a guy named Samuel Huntington , who brought us to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the post-Cold War narrative of a United States in decline .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Also , Trump ’ s mention of Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela , with 59 countries recognizing him , obscures the fact that there ’ s over 100 countries that still recognize the current government of Venezuela .
ROBERTO LOVATO : Yeah , it ’ s theater .
It ’ s all political theater at this point .
It ’ s a global political theater .
And it ’ s going to continue , because the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , failed to destabilize and remove the Venezuelan government .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , you also have the complicity of the corporate media , the mainstream media .
CNN , when Juan Guaidó ’ s wife came to Washington and had a meeting with Trump in the White House , the lower third , the description on CNN , was “ the first lady of Venezuela , ” Juan Guaidó ’ s wife .
ROBERTO LOVATO : It really is absurd .
I mean , I was on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in 2014 , tried to stage a coup , and I brought up the fact that I had been — I received death threats , with a gun included , from allies of Guaidó and Leopoldo López , his mentor .
And I got calls from a guy named Agent Mike Ranger , who sounded like Captain America , curious about the death threat .
And yet , I asked him , “ Well , where — how do you know about this , if I didn ’ t report it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m not at liberty to tell you , sir.
” So , these are really — I mean , it ’ s a joke at one level , but you ’ re dealing with the extreme right , extremely violent .
And I encourage people to just google “ Juan Guaidó ” and “ narco killers ” or “ narco murderers , ” and you ’ ll see pictures of Juan Guaidó at the Colombian-Venezuelan border with people that the Treasury Department has identified as hardened mass-killing narcoterrorists .
AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you so much for being with us and ask you to stay with us for our next segment , award-winning journalist Roberto Lovato , here in New York .
And thanks so much to Lee Fang of The Intercept .
We ’ ll link to your pieces .
This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , American Dirt , the controversy around it , and why Latinx writers are now declaring victory .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Trump also had much to say about immigration. And I wanted — let’s see if we have that clip, when he talks in his State of the Union.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If forcing American taxpayers to provide unlimited free healthcare to illegal aliens sounds fair to you, then stand with the radical left. But if you believe that we should defend American patients and American seniors, then stand with me and pass legislation to prohibit free government healthcare for illegal aliens. This will be a tremendous boon to our already very strongly guarded southern border, where, as we speak, a long, tall and very powerful wall is being built. We have now completed over 100 miles and have over 500 miles fully completed in a very short period of time. Early next year, we will have substantially more than 500 miles completed.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Trump last night. We’re joined now by Roberto Lovato, award-winning journalist. Roberto, your take on the president’s remarks last night about immigration, and also not only about immigration, but supposedly the huge crime wave that’s occurring as a result of sanctuary cities permitting undocumented immigrants who were jailed by local — from ICE detainers?
ROBERTO LOVATO: It’s become predictable. If you look at last year’s State of the Union address, it’s some of the same tropes, same criminals, same immigrants, stealing jobs. I mean, this is tried-and-true for them, and the Republicans are going to use it because it works for them. And Trump is also playing to the fact that the Democrats don’t really have much to offer on immigration. Nancy Pelosi may have ripped the speech, but they both draw from the same playbook on issues like immigration, foreign policy, corporate domination. And so, Trump knows that.
And something that was clear to me, for example, was that Trump didn’t say anything about El Paso — right? — where you had all these Latinos that were murdered, mass murdered, by a white killer who was inspired by Trump’s rhetoric and that of the extreme right. And so, you didn’t have any of those victims in the audience. You know, you had other victims. And we’re in a very dangerous time. And I think that immigration helped Trump get started, and he’s going back to it because it works for him.
And it puts the Democrats in the uncomfortable position, for example, of hiding the fact that when it comes to things like mass deportations, when it comes to things like caging children, when it comes to things like the separation of children from their mothers by the thousands, this was Barack Obama that started us on that path, not Donald Trump. And so, you know, you see it when, in the Iowa — in the Democratic debate, all the candidates run like rats when the lights go on, when it comes to Barack Obama. They don’t want to touch him, because people, especially in the Latino community, know. We have the receipts of what happened with immigration and Obama. And so, Trump knows this, and he’s playing that card that shows that they have nothing to offer.
AMY GOODMAN: And this whole issue, as he was talking about “criminal aliens,” all the studies show that people who are not native-born are less likely to commit crimes, whether violent or nonviolent. And interestingly, as he touted the wall, just a few weeks ago, newly installed panels from the U.S. border wall fell over — this was from California — into Mexico, two weeks ago, because of high winds.
ROBERTO LOVATO: Yeah. The wall is symbolic not just of immigration. I think it’s the closing of the U.S. mind. And that’s the trap that I think the Democrats have fallen into, that they’ve played to anti-immigrant sentiment, except instead of saying racist tropes, they’ve said, ”Sí, se puede.” At a material level, at the level of the immigrant body, the tortured, the starved, dehydrated, the dead child at the river and in the desert, there’s not that much of a statistical difference between Obama and Trump. And so, Trump knows — Trump’s strategists know what they’re doing when they’re deploying immigration as an electoral tactic and part of the core strategy.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: President Trump also talked last night about Venezuela, a subject over which he hasn’t been saying much in the last several months. But this is what he said last night.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, a tyrant who brutalizes his people. But Maduro’s grip on tyranny will be smashed and broken. Here this evening is a very brave man who carries with him the hopes, dreams and aspirations of all Venezuelans. Joining us in the gallery is the true and legitimate president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the president then pointed to Juan Guaidó, who was in the gallery and stood up and got applause from both Democrats and — I mean, not only Republicans, but, from what I can see, from most Democrats, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s right. There’s Nancy Pelosi on the podium right behind Trump, who, within minutes, would be ripping up his speech, standing up and applauding.
ROBERTO LOVATO: This is why I started off my comments talking about the way that the Democrats use the same playbook as the Republicans. At the core level of, say, foreign policy, militarism and staging coups and economic neoliberalism, there isn’t that much of a great difference, which is what I think the Sanders threat brings to both parties, because the Democrats are in check. I mean, I look at the irregularities, for example, in Iowa. I’m looking at a president who has been impeached, and I look at the appointment of a foreign leader by fiat, by tweet, and now by television, televised speech. It’s harkening back to kind of a digital age Latin American dictatorship. We’re watching what I would call the latinoamericanización of U.S. politics, when you have the division between rich and poor being so stark.
And so, Guaidó’s being there is just their continued efforts to prop up this failed most recent coup attempt, that’s been going on almost 20 years in Venezuela. I’ve been on the show here with both of you and talked about Leopoldo López, who is really the great eminence behind the throne of the Venezuelan right, of the extreme right, because the Venezuelan opposition is vast. It’s broad. And the U.S. and Elliott Abrams, who I know from El Salvador and his support for mass murderers of children in places like El Mozote, is supporting the most extreme elements. And so, you have here the introduction of Guaidó to prop him up, but also, I think, to play against Bernie Sanders and the socialist theme.
You heard Trump referring to socialism. He repeated the term, just like he repeated the tropes of civilizational warfare, civilization. He even said the word “barbarians.” So you have terrorists, immigrants, criminals — all these codewords, all this red meat, as Lee Fang said, being used for the base. I mean, again, both Democrats and Republicans play to these themes in different ways, except that, for example — I mean, they both draw from a guy named Samuel Huntington, who brought us to the age of civilizational warfare as kind of the post-Cold War narrative of a United States in decline.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Also, Trump’s mention of Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela, with 59 countries recognizing him, obscures the fact that there’s over 100 countries that still recognize the current government of Venezuela.
ROBERTO LOVATO: Yeah, it’s theater. It’s all political theater at this point. It’s a global political theater. And it’s going to continue, because the United States still has, after 20 years, failed to destabilize and remove the Venezuelan government.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, you also have the complicity of the corporate media, the mainstream media. CNN, when Juan Guaidó’s wife came to Washington and had a meeting with Trump in the White House, the lower third, the description on CNN, was “the first lady of Venezuela,” Juan Guaidó’s wife.
ROBERTO LOVATO: It really is absurd. I mean, I was on your show some years back when Leopoldo López, in 2014, tried to stage a coup, and I brought up the fact that I had been — I received death threats, with a gun included, from allies of Guaidó and Leopoldo López, his mentor. And I got calls from a guy named Agent Mike Ranger, who sounded like Captain America, curious about the death threat. And yet, I asked him, “Well, where — how do you know about this, if I didn’t report it to the authorities?” He says, “I’m not at liberty to tell you, sir.” So, these are really — I mean, it’s a joke at one level, but you’re dealing with the extreme right, extremely violent. And I encourage people to just google “Juan Guaidó” and “narco killers” or “narco murderers,” and you’ll see pictures of Juan Guaidó at the Colombian-Venezuelan border with people that the Treasury Department has identified as hardened mass-killing narcoterrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much for being with us and ask you to stay with us for our next segment, award-winning journalist Roberto Lovato, here in New York. And thanks so much to Lee Fang of The Intercept. We’ll link to your pieces.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, American Dirt, the controversy around it, and why Latinx writers are now declaring victory. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-02-05--In State of the Union, Trump Celebrates Hate & Xenophobia While Touting "Great American Comeback"

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , President Trump delivered his third State of the Union address Tuesday night , just a day before the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to vote to acquit him in the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history .
Trump ’ s speech sounded at times like a campaign rally , with Republican lawmakers chanting “ Four more years.
” Trump focused much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He never once mentioned his impeachment trial .
AMY GOODMAN : The night was filled with drama of a reality TV show .
Prior to the speech , President Trump refused to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s hand .
Once his speech was over , Pelosi was seen on television ripping up her copy of the speech from the podium .
She later called the speech a “ manifesto of mistruths.
” A number of Democrats walked out during Trump ’ s address .
Congressmember Rashida Tlaib walked out after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
Ohio Congressmember Tim Ryan walked out , then tweeted , “ I ’ ve had enough .
It ’ s like watching professional wrestling .
It ’ s all fake.
” Massachusetts Congressmember Seth Moulton and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey also walked out .
A number of Democrats boycotted the night altogether , including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts , Maxine Waters of California , presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii , Al Green of Texas , Bobby Rush of Illinois , Hank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tennessee , Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Frederica Wilson of Florida .
None of them came .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : During Trump ’ s speech , the father of one of the victims of the mass shooting in Parkland , Florida , was thrown out after he shouted about his daughter Jaime ’ s death .
Fred Guttenberg was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s guest at the State of the Union .
He interrupted Trump ’ s speech when Trump touted his pro-gun positions .
And Melania Trump bestowed the Medal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who has spread racist conspiracy theories about former President Barack Obama , among other racist lies .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ ll have more on the State of the Union as we ’ re joined by two guests : Lee Fang , investigative journalist at The Intercept , still with us from San Francisco , and , here in New York , the award-winning journalist Roberto Lovato and the author of the forthcoming book Unforgetting : A Memoir of Revolution and Redemption .
Lee , let ’ s start with you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State of the Union address and what exactly took place last night .
LEE FANG : Well , look , the Constitution provides that the president is expected to correspond with Congress with his or her legislative priorities .
Over the last 100 years , this has manifested in the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress .
And over the last decade or so , it ’ s really become more of a partisan political theater that ’ s divorced from the actual legislative priorities of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching this : This was a campaign rally speech — Trump previewing his election message for 2020 , talking about the success of the economy , throwing red meat to his base on guns , abortion , talk radio , Rush Limbaugh .
And , you know , I think there ’ s an interesting dynamic here , too , in that it looked like Trump was pivoting back to his 2016 message , actually trying to coopt Democrats by talking about how he would protect Social Security and Medicare , increase social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug prices .
This is kind of unusual for a Republican in the modern era , but that was the campaign message that Trump ran on in 2016 .
Simultaneously , he painted a really lurid picture of immigrant crime , of terrorists murdering Americans , and the need for law enforcement and ICE to keep us safe .
So he ’ s simultaneously coopting these core economic ideas from Democrats while pushing xenophobia and hate and demonizing immigrants , demonizing foreigners .
This is the combination that we ’ re seeing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrial world .
This is the campaign message and strategy that Boris Johnson used in the December election in the U.K .
This is what the hard right and popular right has used in Poland , in Hungary , coopting the left on some core economic ideas while demonizing immigrants and boosting xenophobia .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Lee , let ’ s go back to hear President Trump speaking last night .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : That was President Trump talking about the economic accomplishments of his administration .
Of course , Lee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 % rise in the income of low-income workers , never mentions the fact that it ’ s largely the result of a $ 15-an-hour movement sweeping the country , having nothing to do with the administration , but actually with a popular movement that developed to raise wages .
He also never mentioned , perhaps the signature accomplishment of his administration , his tax reform , his tax bill .
Wondering your sense on his speaking about his economic accomplishments .
LEE FANG : Juan , that ’ s an incredibly important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows the weakness of Trump ’ s actual legislative accomplishment .
His biggest legislative accomplishment by far was his tax cut bill , that ’ s over $ 5 trillion over 10 years , weighted mostly to wealthy individuals and corporations , boosting the stock market as corporations use that extra cash to buy back their stock shares , enriching their investors .
But , you know , for Trump , who ’ s focusing on his re-election , I think he ’ s implicitly acknowledging that his own base isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He doesn ’ t want to talk about all the trillions of dollars he ’ s shifting upwards to CEOs and wealthy individuals .
Instead , he ’ s talking about kind of vague economic stats and , again , pivoting to the red meat of cultural conservative values .
AMY GOODMAN : So , gutting regulations .
Lee Fang , you just did an incredible piece , “ The Playbook for Poisoning the Earth.
” Explain what you found .
LEE FANG : Well , look , this investigation took us over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusive emails and lobbying documents .
But the kind of big-picture view of this is that over the last 30 years there ’ s a new chemical compound , neonicotinoids .
They ’ re now the most widely used insecticide in the world .
And they are increasingly blamed for insect extinctions , nontarget insects , all across the world .
That ’ s why we ’ re seeing disappearing bumblebees and solitary bees , dragonflies and butterflies .
And I know we don ’ t have time to go deeply into this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting regulations , cutting red tape , just in the last week , his EPA rubber-stamped the reapproval of these dangerous pesticides .
Meanwhile , the EU is moving to ban them .
This is the reason that we ’ re seeing an ecological collapse and , in many areas , a loss of biodiversity across the country .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, President Trump delivered his third State of the Union address Tuesday night, just a day before the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to vote to acquit him in the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. Trump’s speech sounded at times like a campaign rally, with Republican lawmakers chanting “Four more years.” Trump focused much of his speech on the economy and immigration. He never once mentioned his impeachment trial.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And my fellow citizens: Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback. Tonight I stand before you to share the incredible results. Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving and highly respected again.
AMY GOODMAN: The night was filled with drama of a reality TV show. Prior to the speech, President Trump refused to shake House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand. Once his speech was over, Pelosi was seen on television ripping up her copy of the speech from the podium. She later called the speech a “manifesto of mistruths.”
A number of Democrats walked out during Trump’s address. Congressmember Rashida Tlaib walked out after Trump touted the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Ohio Congressmember Tim Ryan walked out, then tweeted, “I’ve had enough. It’s like watching professional wrestling. It’s all fake.” Massachusetts Congressmember Seth Moulton and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey also walked out.
A number of Democrats boycotted the night altogether, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Maxine Waters of California, presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Al Green of Texas, Bobby Rush of Illinois, Hank Johnson of Georgia, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Frederica Wilson of Florida. None of them came.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: During Trump’s speech, the father of one of the victims of the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, was thrown out after he shouted about his daughter Jaime’s death. Fred Guttenberg was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s guest at the State of the Union. He interrupted Trump’s speech when Trump touted his pro-gun positions.
And Melania Trump bestowed the Medal of Freedom on right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has spread racist conspiracy theories about former President Barack Obama, among other racist lies.
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll have more on the State of the Union as we’re joined by two guests: Lee Fang, investigative journalist at The Intercept, still with us from San Francisco, and, here in New York, the award-winning journalist Roberto Lovato and the author of the forthcoming book Unforgetting: A Memoir of Revolution and Redemption.
Lee, let’s start with you. Give us an overview of the State of the Union address and what exactly took place last night.
LEE FANG: Well, look, the Constitution provides that the president is expected to correspond with Congress with his or her legislative priorities. Over the last 100 years, this has manifested in the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress. And over the last decade or so, it’s really become more of a partisan political theater that’s divorced from the actual legislative priorities of the president. It was clear, from anyone watching this: This was a campaign rally speech — Trump previewing his election message for 2020, talking about the success of the economy, throwing red meat to his base on guns, abortion, talk radio, Rush Limbaugh.
And, you know, I think there’s an interesting dynamic here, too, in that it looked like Trump was pivoting back to his 2016 message, actually trying to coopt Democrats by talking about how he would protect Social Security and Medicare, increase social spending, boost infrastructure spending, tackle drug prices. This is kind of unusual for a Republican in the modern era, but that was the campaign message that Trump ran on in 2016. Simultaneously, he painted a really lurid picture of immigrant crime, of terrorists murdering Americans, and the need for law enforcement and ICE to keep us safe. So he’s simultaneously coopting these core economic ideas from Democrats while pushing xenophobia and hate and demonizing immigrants, demonizing foreigners. This is the combination that we’re seeing in the populist right all over the Western industrial world. This is the campaign message and strategy that Boris Johnson used in the December election in the U.K. This is what the hard right and popular right has used in Poland, in Hungary, coopting the left on some core economic ideas while demonizing immigrants and boosting xenophobia.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Lee, let’s go back to hear President Trump speaking last night.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: After decades of flat and falling incomes, wages are rising fast, and, wonderfully, they are rising fastest for low-income workers, who have seen a 16% pay increase since my election. This is a blue-collar boom. Real median household income is now at the highest level ever recorded. Since my election, U.S. stock markets have soared 70%, adding more than $12 trillion to our nation’s wealth, transcending anything anyone believed was possible. This is a record. It is something that every country in the world is looking up to, they admire.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Trump talking about the economic accomplishments of his administration. Of course, Lee, in that, when he mentions the 16% rise in the income of low-income workers, never mentions the fact that it’s largely the result of a $15-an-hour movement sweeping the country, having nothing to do with the administration, but actually with a popular movement that developed to raise wages. He also never mentioned, perhaps the signature accomplishment of his administration, his tax reform, his tax bill. Wondering your sense on his speaking about his economic accomplishments.
LEE FANG: Juan, that’s an incredibly important point, and I think it implicitly shows the weakness of Trump’s actual legislative accomplishment. His biggest legislative accomplishment by far was his tax cut bill, that’s over $5 trillion over 10 years, weighted mostly to wealthy individuals and corporations, boosting the stock market as corporations use that extra cash to buy back their stock shares, enriching their investors. But, you know, for Trump, who’s focusing on his re-election, I think he’s implicitly acknowledging that his own base isn’t happy with his biggest legislative accomplishment. He doesn’t want to talk about all the trillions of dollars he’s shifting upwards to CEOs and wealthy individuals. Instead, he’s talking about kind of vague economic stats and, again, pivoting to the red meat of cultural conservative values.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s return to President Trump speaking last night.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy, slashing a record number of job-killing regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts, and fighting for fair and reciprocal trade agreements.
AMY GOODMAN: So, gutting regulations. Lee Fang, you just did an incredible piece, “The Playbook for Poisoning the Earth.” Explain what you found.
LEE FANG: Well, look, this investigation took us over a year. We have lots of exclusive emails and lobbying documents. But the kind of big-picture view of this is that over the last 30 years there’s a new chemical compound, neonicotinoids. They’re now the most widely used insecticide in the world. And they are increasingly blamed for insect extinctions, nontarget insects, all across the world. That’s why we’re seeing disappearing bumblebees and solitary bees, dragonflies and butterflies. And I know we don’t have time to go deeply into this piece, but when Trump talks about cutting regulations, cutting red tape, just in the last week, his EPA rubber-stamped the reapproval of these dangerous pesticides. Meanwhile, the EU is moving to ban them. This is the reason that we’re seeing an ecological collapse and, in many areas, a loss of biodiversity across the country.


democracynow--2020-02-05--Sanders & Buttigieg Lead in Early Iowa Results After Faulty App Leads to Catastrophe at Caucus

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : We begin the show in Iowa , where the final results of Monday ’ s Democratic caucus remain unknown .
With 71 % of precincts reporting , Senator Bernie Sanders is leading in the popular vote , while former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead in state delegates — the number traditionally used to determine the winner .
Sanders won the popular vote in both the first and second round of voting , followed by Buttigieg and then Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden placed fourth , followed by Senator Amy Klobuchar .
Meanwhile , Buttigieg currently has 26.8 % of delegate equivalents , followed by Bernie Sanders with 25.2 % .
But again , about a quarter of the vote still remains to be counted .
AMY GOODMAN : It ’ s unclear when full results will be released and how the reporting SNAFU will impact the Democratic race .
On Tuesday , Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned in Milford , New Hampshire , ahead of Tuesday ’ s first primary .
AMY GOODMAN : Former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg celebrated the early Iowa results during a campaign stop in Laconia , New Hampshire .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : During a press conference Tuesday , Troy Price , the chair of the Iowa Democratic Party , apologized for the crisis .
AMY GOODMAN : Democratic officials cited problems with a newly created app built by a firm called Shadow that was supposed to help precincts report results .
The Democratic Party in Nevada , which was also planning to use the app during its upcoming caucus later in February , abandoned that plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by reporter Lee Fang of The Intercept .
His new piece is headlined “ New Details Show How Deeply Iowa Caucus App Developer Was Embedded in Democratic Establishment.
” Lee , lay it out for us .
What happened in Iowa ?
LEE FANG : Amy , thank you so much for having me .
I mean , there ’ s no way around this .
The delay in reporting the Iowa caucus results is a catastrophe .
We ’ re two days out from the caucus .
We still don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dark day for , small D , democracy and a very bad omen for , capital D , the Democratic Party .
What appears to have happened is that in a short period of time , over a couple months , this product , this app , was secretly developed , deployed to the Iowa Democratic Party .
It was not fully tested .
The Iowa Democratic Party and campaign officials who were supposed to deploy this technology did not properly train volunteers and other officials who were running these caucuses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ logging into the app .
There were inconsistencies in reporting the data from the app .
So that explains part of the delay .
And , you know , we were one of the first to report the identity of this firm that developed this app for the Democratic Party , but answers are still trickling out why there were so many problems , why there was so much incompetence in terms of deploying this , and why it was rushed and why this only came together in a few months before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee , anyone who has dealt with the rollout of a new software or program at any institution or workplace knows that you ’ ve got to test it out well before you actually put it — make it go live .
And so , it ’ s astounding that this Troy Price is still the chair of the Iowa Democratic Party .
He should have resigned at the same time that he made this announcement .
But I ’ m wondering if you could talk a little bit about who was behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And how did they get the contract ?
AMY GOODMAN : Who are the shadows behind the Shadow ?
LEE FANG : Well , it ’ s an interesting name for a company .
But just to give you some of the quick history here , after the 2016 election , there was a lot of discussion about the Trump campaign besting the Hillary Clinton campaign on digital outreach , on digital advertising on Facebook and other social media platforms .
So a number of mostly Hillary Clinton campaign alumni formed a for-profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called ACRONYM/PACRONYM .
That ’ s a suite of both a super PAC and a dark money group .
These individuals raised tens of millions of dollars , largely from big Democratic donors , folks on Wall Street , in Silicon Valley , in Hollywood .
And they promised a robust response to the Trump agenda , to face Trump in 2020 .
Last year , in January 2019 , they acquired this company Groundbase .
They renamed it Shadow .
It ’ s fully affiliated with this ACRONYM/PACRONYM group .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we understand — we talked to a number of individuals in the Democratic Party and other officials close to this firm — they used their leverage with high-level Democratic donors , with Democratic establishment types , to quickly secure this contract with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Iowa Democratic Party to deploy this app .
They had a very small number of developers working on this app in secret .
And as you mentioned , the Nevada Democratic Party has now canceled their plans to use this app .
The Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this app .
We ’ ve heard reports that folks were told about the app even on the very day of the caucus .
They had no idea how to use it , how to report the system .
And there were serious bugs in the app .
It would shut off while the caucus was being run .
So , a plethora of problems .
But this was created by a relatively small group of Democratic insiders , former campaign staff , again , to Hillary Clinton .
There has been also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interest .
There ’ s no discussion — there ’ s no evidence so far that this app was hacked or there was any of those type of cybersecurity problems .
That ’ s still being evaluated , but there ’ s no evidence of that .
But there is some question about the appearance of conflict of interest .
Pete Buttigieg ’ s campaign has paid over $ 40,000 to this company , Shadow .
Joe Biden ’ s campaign has worked a little bit with this company .
But for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a neutral arbiter , to be literally developing the app to tabulate the votes , I think it ’ s important to have a neutral , objective entity developing this , not a company that ’ s only working with a few of the campaigns and not the others .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Lee , what about this whole issue of , I guess you ’ d call it , a techno-arrogance , creating an app for a process that had a perfectly fine way of counting in the past ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the phone , and you call the central headquarters , and you give them the results .
This whole idea of technology can solve every problem and produce faster results , so that the media can more quickly tell the American people what happened , this is — isn ’ t this another warning sign of this arrogance of the technological community ?
LEE FANG : I think that ’ s fair to say .
I mean , look in the last 10 years , some of the biggest scandals in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the juice company that overpromised and underdelivered .
We have Theranos , this blood testing company , that was a multibillion-dollar failure based on lies and , you know , just a very solid pitch to investors , but without the underlying technology .
I think a lot of folks are looking for quick fixes .
And there is this ideology that technology alone can solve all of our problems .
You know , I don ’ t want to condemn everyone involved in this .
We ’ re still getting answers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from what we know , there was this pitch to high-level Democratic donors that this company , these individuals could deliver a powerful platform in a short amount of time .
And the kind of most basic questions weren ’ t asked , and the product simply didn ’ t work .
AMY GOODMAN : Tell us who Tara McGowan is .
LEE FANG : Tara is the founder of ACRONYM and PACRONYM .
That ’ s this umbrella group that owns or invested in Shadow , which made the app .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She ’ s married to a Pete Buttigieg senior campaign staffer .
You know , from all the profiles I ’ ve read — LEE FANG : Michael Halle , correct .
You know , over the last years , there was a lot of profiles written of her , a lot of quotes .
And , you know , I think , as far as I understand , she has promised a robust Democratic response to Trump ’ s advantage in digital media .
That ’ s all well and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic operatives and others who are close to this group , it appears that her group had not an objective focus just on Trump , but some close relationships with just a few of the campaigns .
And , you know , I don ’ t know the future here .
She has — her company distanced themselves from Shadow , saying they ’ re merely an investor .
But as we reported yesterday , they ’ re deeply embedded with her group .
The app developer shares offices with her company in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff .
This is part of her company .
AMY GOODMAN : And , Lee Fang , if you could talk about a few things ?
Why did the Iowa Democratic Party insist the name of the app should be kept secret ?
County or , whatever you call them in Iowa , precinct leaders , in the days before , were saying they were having lots of trouble .
I mean , there was no full-scale testing , but some people tried and could not make this app work .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone system , what it used to be .
You just call up .
But it was so poorly staffed that people waited on line for hours and then more often hung up on .
All these issues .
And finally , one other question : Trump ’ s cybersecurity group within Homeland Security said they offered to test the app , and the Democrats said no .
LEE FANG : Well , look , I don ’ t have all the answers to this .
There ’ s been a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the party .
I expect in the next few days there ’ s going to be a lot more answers trickling out .
Why this was not better vetted is still not clear .
We do know that the Bernie Sanders campaign expected these types of problems and actually trained and created their own kind of digital platform to report the results on their own , expecting this type of failure .
So , you know , at least some of these insiders , some of the presidential campaigns were aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was so much trust in this Democratic consulting firm that had just launched a few years ago , this company that just launched one year ago , that had a small developer team , and why there was so much secrecy really isn ’ t clear yet .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to break right now .
Lee Fang , we want to ask you to stay with us as we shift gears and talk about what happened last night : the State of the Union address , or you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disunion.
” Lee Fang , investigative journalist at The Intercept .
We ’ re going to link to your most recent piece .
It ’ s headlined “ New Details Show How Deeply Iowa Caucus App Developer Was Embedded in Democratic Establishment.
” This is Democracy Now !
Back in a minute .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin the show in Iowa, where the final results of Monday’s Democratic caucus remain unknown. With 71% of precincts reporting, Senator Bernie Sanders is leading in the popular vote, while former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead in state delegates — the number traditionally used to determine the winner. Sanders won the popular vote in both the first and second round of voting, followed by Buttigieg and then Senator Elizabeth Warren. Former Vice President Joe Biden placed fourth, followed by Senator Amy Klobuchar. Meanwhile, Buttigieg currently has 26.8% of delegate equivalents, followed by Bernie Sanders with 25.2%. But again, about a quarter of the vote still remains to be counted.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s unclear when full results will be released and how the reporting SNAFU will impact the Democratic race. On Tuesday, Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned in Milford, New Hampshire, ahead of Tuesday’s first primary.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I’m very proud to tell you that last night in Iowa we received more votes on the first and second round than any other candidate. Now, that is — that is with 62% of the vote. And for some reason in Iowa they’re having a little bit of trouble counting votes. But I am confident that here in New Hampshire, I know they’ll be able to count your votes on election night. And when you count those votes, I look forward to winning here in New Hampshire.
AMY GOODMAN: Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg celebrated the early Iowa results during a campaign stop in Laconia, New Hampshire.
PETE BUTTIGIEG: So, we don’t know all of the numbers, but we know this much: A campaign that started a year ago with four staff members, no name recognition, no money, just a big idea, a campaign that some said should have no business even making this attempt, has taken its place at the front of this race to replace the current president with a better vision for the future.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: During a press conference Tuesday, Troy Price, the chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, apologized for the crisis.
TROY PRICE: The reporting of the results and circumstances surrounding the 2020 Iowa Democratic Party caucuses were unacceptable. As chair of the party, I apologize deeply for this. Last night, we were faced with multiple reporting challenges and decided, out of an abundance of caution, to protect the integrity of the Iowa caucuses and their results by taking the necessary steps to review and confirm the data.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic officials cited problems with a newly created app built by a firm called Shadow that was supposed to help precincts report results. The Democratic Party in Nevada, which was also planning to use the app during its upcoming caucus later in February, abandoned that plan Tuesday.
We’re joined now by reporter Lee Fang of The Intercept. His new piece is headlined “New Details Show How Deeply Iowa Caucus App Developer Was Embedded in Democratic Establishment.”
Lee, lay it out for us. What happened in Iowa?
LEE FANG: Amy, thank you so much for having me.
I mean, there’s no way around this. The delay in reporting the Iowa caucus results is a catastrophe. We’re two days out from the caucus. We still don’t see the full results. This is a dark day for, small D, democracy and a very bad omen for, capital D, the Democratic Party.
What appears to have happened is that in a short period of time, over a couple months, this product, this app, was secretly developed, deployed to the Iowa Democratic Party. It was not fully tested. The Iowa Democratic Party and campaign officials who were supposed to deploy this technology did not properly train volunteers and other officials who were running these caucuses. There were problems downloading the app, logging into the app. There were inconsistencies in reporting the data from the app. So that explains part of the delay. And, you know, we were one of the first to report the identity of this firm that developed this app for the Democratic Party, but answers are still trickling out why there were so many problems, why there was so much incompetence in terms of deploying this, and why it was rushed and why this only came together in a few months before the caucus.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lee, anyone who has dealt with the rollout of a new software or program at any institution or workplace knows that you’ve got to test it out well before you actually put it — make it go live. And so, it’s astounding that this Troy Price is still the chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. He should have resigned at the same time that he made this announcement. But I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about who was behind it. Who was behind it? And how did they get the contract?
AMY GOODMAN: Who are the shadows behind the Shadow?
LEE FANG: Well, it’s an interesting name for a company. But just to give you some of the quick history here, after the 2016 election, there was a lot of discussion about the Trump campaign besting the Hillary Clinton campaign on digital outreach, on digital advertising on Facebook and other social media platforms. So a number of mostly Hillary Clinton campaign alumni formed a for-profit company and a suite, a group called ACRONYM/PACRONYM. That’s a suite of both a super PAC and a dark money group. These individuals raised tens of millions of dollars, largely from big Democratic donors, folks on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley, in Hollywood. And they promised a robust response to the Trump agenda, to face Trump in 2020.
Last year, in January 2019, they acquired this company Groundbase. They renamed it Shadow. It’s fully affiliated with this ACRONYM/PACRONYM group. And they had a very small staff. But as we understand — we talked to a number of individuals in the Democratic Party and other officials close to this firm — they used their leverage with high-level Democratic donors, with Democratic establishment types, to quickly secure this contract with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Iowa Democratic Party to deploy this app. They had a very small number of developers working on this app in secret. And as you mentioned, the Nevada Democratic Party has now canceled their plans to use this app.
The Iowa Democratic Party released very little information about this app. We’ve heard reports that folks were told about the app even on the very day of the caucus. They had no idea how to use it, how to report the system. And there were serious bugs in the app. It would shut off while the caucus was being run. So, a plethora of problems. But this was created by a relatively small group of Democratic insiders, former campaign staff, again, to Hillary Clinton.
There has been also a little bit of talk about conflict of interest. There’s no discussion — there’s no evidence so far that this app was hacked or there was any of those type of cybersecurity problems. That’s still being evaluated, but there’s no evidence of that. But there is some question about the appearance of conflict of interest. Pete Buttigieg’s campaign has paid over $40,000 to this company, Shadow. Joe Biden’s campaign has worked a little bit with this company. But for a company that is expected to be a neutral arbiter, to be literally developing the app to tabulate the votes, I think it’s important to have a neutral, objective entity developing this, not a company that’s only working with a few of the campaigns and not the others.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Lee, what about this whole issue of, I guess you’d call it, a techno-arrogance, creating an app for a process that had a perfectly fine way of counting in the past? You get the results, you get on the phone, and you call the central headquarters, and you give them the results. This whole idea of technology can solve every problem and produce faster results, so that the media can more quickly tell the American people what happened, this is — isn’t this another warning sign of this arrogance of the technological community?
LEE FANG: I think that’s fair to say. I mean, look in the last 10 years, some of the biggest scandals in the business community. We have Juicero, the juice company that overpromised and underdelivered. We have Theranos, this blood testing company, that was a multibillion-dollar failure based on lies and, you know, just a very solid pitch to investors, but without the underlying technology. I think a lot of folks are looking for quick fixes. And there is this ideology that technology alone can solve all of our problems.
You know, I don’t want to condemn everyone involved in this. We’re still getting answers. But it’s very clear, from what we know, there was this pitch to high-level Democratic donors that this company, these individuals could deliver a powerful platform in a short amount of time. And the kind of most basic questions weren’t asked, and the product simply didn’t work.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who Tara McGowan is.
LEE FANG: Tara is the founder of ACRONYM and PACRONYM. That’s this umbrella group that owns or invested in Shadow, which made the app. She has helped raise a lot of money. She’s married to a Pete Buttigieg senior campaign staffer. You know, from all the profiles I’ve read —
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Halle. Michael Halle.
LEE FANG: Michael Halle, correct. You know, over the last years, there was a lot of profiles written of her, a lot of quotes. And, you know, I think, as far as I understand, she has promised a robust Democratic response to Trump’s advantage in digital media. That’s all well and good. But from just talking to different Democratic operatives and others who are close to this group, it appears that her group had not an objective focus just on Trump, but some close relationships with just a few of the campaigns. And, you know, I don’t know the future here. She has — her company distanced themselves from Shadow, saying they’re merely an investor. But as we reported yesterday, they’re deeply embedded with her group. The app developer shares offices with her company in Denver. They share resources, share staff. This is part of her company.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Lee Fang, if you could talk about a few things? Why did the Iowa Democratic Party insist the name of the app should be kept secret? County or, whatever you call them in Iowa, precinct leaders, in the days before, were saying they were having lots of trouble. I mean, there was no full-scale testing, but some people tried and could not make this app work. And, of course, the backup was the phone system, what it used to be. You just call up. But it was so poorly staffed that people waited on line for hours and then more often hung up on. All these issues. And finally, one other question: Trump’s cybersecurity group within Homeland Security said they offered to test the app, and the Democrats said no.
LEE FANG: Well, look, I don’t have all the answers to this. There’s been a lot of reporting on the interactions between the app and the party. I expect in the next few days there’s going to be a lot more answers trickling out. Why this was not better vetted is still not clear. We do know that the Bernie Sanders campaign expected these types of problems and actually trained and created their own kind of digital platform to report the results on their own, expecting this type of failure. So, you know, at least some of these insiders, some of the presidential campaigns were aware of some potential problems. But why there was so much trust in this Democratic consulting firm that had just launched a few years ago, this company that just launched one year ago, that had a small developer team, and why there was so much secrecy really isn’t clear yet.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break right now. Lee Fang, we want to ask you to stay with us as we shift gears and talk about what happened last night: the State of the Union address, or you might call it the “State of Disunion.” Lee Fang, investigative journalist at The Intercept. We’re going to link to your most recent piece. It’s headlined “New Details Show How Deeply Iowa Caucus App Developer Was Embedded in Democratic Establishment.” This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.


democracynow--2020-02-05--Headlines for February  5, 2020

Headlines for February  5, 2020

In Iowa , partial results from Monday ’ s caucus show former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg with a narrow lead over Senator Bernie Sanders in the delegate count — while Sanders continues to lead the popular vote overall .
This is Buttigieg speaking in New Hampshire .
Pete Buttigieg : “ A little later than we anticipated , but better late than never , official , verified caucus results are coming in from the state of Iowa .
They ’ re not complete , but results are in from a majority of precincts .
And they show our campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the precinct results have been announced so far .
It is not clear when the rest of the results will be announced .
Democratic officials have attributed the chaos in Iowa to a newly created app , built by a little-known firm called Shadow .
The New York Times reports the company was founded by members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign , and its previous work had been marred by failures and a near bankruptcy .
Nevada ’ s state Democratic Party says it will not not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign paid Shadow $ 42,500 for “ software rights and subscriptions.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden , who is currently in fourth place in Iowa , also had contracts with Shadow in 2019 .
Many say the fiasco in Iowa may mark the end of Iowa ’ s first-in-the-nation caucus tradition .
In a piece headlined “ Kill the tradition : N.H. and Iowa should not vote first , ” The Boston Globe editorial board called for “ the end of an antiquated system that gives outsized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , demographically , more resemble 19th-century America than they do the America of today.
” We ’ ll have more on what we know — and still don ’ t know — from Iowa after headlines .

In Iowa, partial results from Monday’s caucus show former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg with a narrow lead over Senator Bernie Sanders in the delegate count — while Sanders continues to lead the popular vote overall. This is Buttigieg speaking in New Hampshire.
Pete Buttigieg: “A little later than we anticipated, but better late than never, official, verified caucus results are coming in from the state of Iowa. They’re not complete, but results are in from a majority of precincts. And they show our campaign in first place.”
Seventy-one percent of the precinct results have been announced so far. It is not clear when the rest of the results will be announced.
Democratic officials have attributed the chaos in Iowa to a newly created app, built by a little-known firm called Shadow. The New York Times reports the company was founded by members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and its previous work had been marred by failures and a near bankruptcy. Nevada’s state Democratic Party says it will not not use the Shadow app in its upcoming caucus. Buttigieg’s campaign paid Shadow $42,500 for “software rights and subscriptions.” Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is currently in fourth place in Iowa, also had contracts with Shadow in 2019.
Many say the fiasco in Iowa may mark the end of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus tradition. In a piece headlined “Kill the tradition: N.H. and Iowa should not vote first,” The Boston Globe editorial board called for “the end of an antiquated system that gives outsized influence in choosing presidents to two states that, demographically, more resemble 19th-century America than they do the America of today.” We’ll have more on what we know — and still don’t know — from Iowa after headlines.


democracynow--2020-02-06--Erasing History: The National Archives Is Destroying Records About Victims of Trump's ICE Policies

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Last month , the National Archives and Records Administration apologized for doctoring a photo of the 2017 Women ’ s March to remove criticisms of President Trump .
The Washington Post first revealed the agency , which calls itself the country ’ s record keeper , had altered the image .
As part of an exhibit called “ Rightfully Hers : American Women and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ displayed a large image of the first Women ’ s March .
But signs referencing Trump were blurred to remove his name , including a poster reading “ God Hates Trump.
” The National Archives initially stood behind its decision to edit the photo , saying the changes were made , quote , “ so as not to engage in current political controversy , ” unquote .
But last month , the National Archives reversed course and apologized .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we turn now to a historian who says this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quote , “ a great and growing threat to our nation ’ s capacity to protect and learn from history.
” Matthew Connelly is professor of history at Columbia University , principal investigator at History Lab , his recent piece for The New York Times headlined “ Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE.
” It details how the National Archives is reportedly allowing millions of documents , including many related to immigrant rights , to be expunged .
Professor Matthew Connelly , welcome to Democracy Now !
Lay out what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what I found is the National Archives , which , you know , as a matter of business , in the normal practice of archiving our nation ’ s record , they have to decide what records are going to be temporary and which ones they need to preserve permanently .
And normally , these kinds of documents — they call them records retention schedules — are ones that almost nobody would actually read , except maybe an archivist or an historian .
But in this case , it was fascinating , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have found is that records relating to the death , the sexual assault of undocumented immigrants had been designated as temporary .
In other words , these were records they decided had to be deleted after sometimes three years , five years , 10 or , at most , 25 years , in this case .
So there was a big outcry .
A lot of people — in fact , tens of thousands of people — spoke up in protest .
Dozens of members of Congress and the Senate also voiced objections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the archivist of the United States , David Ferriero , announced that they were going to go ahead anyway .
They had made some changes , but , in fact , huge numbers of records relating to shoddy medical care , the civil rights violations of these undocumented immigrants , all these records are going to start to be destroyed later this year .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , is there any precedent to this ?
I mean , who has been in charge ?
Who has made the decisions here ?
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration where the National Archives were altered in this way ?
MATTHEW CONNELLY : So , in fairness , the National Archives has a tough job , because , in effect , they have to predict the future .
They have to try to figure out what it is that future historians , journalists , citizens are going to want to know about the past .
But in the past , it was typically agencies , departments , like the CIA , the Pentagon , that would destroy what I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here and now .
So , for example , the CIA has a long history of destroying records of covert operations , mind control experiments and , most recently and notoriously , the torture videos .
Similarly , the Pentagon destroyed all of the records of the deliberations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and , in fact , decided to — NERMEEN SHAIKH : So , those kinds of documents would normally be in the National Archives ?
MATTHEW CONNELLY : Well , one would hope , right ?
Because under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant documents that should have been preserved .
And it was a violation of federal law that these records were destroyed .
So , normally , we ’ d trust the National Archives to be the watchdog to prevent other parts of the government from destroying the historical record .
But , unfortunately , that ’ s not been happening .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you write , “ The Department of the Interior and the National Archives have decided to delete files on endangered species , offshore drilling inspections and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about , specifically , when we ’ re talking about ICE , that last month they announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Trump ’ s first year , including the detainees ’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care .
Is this different from previous administrations ?
MATTHEW CONNELLY : It is .
I would say that under this administration things have gone much further , much faster .
I think perhaps the best example of that is how Donald Trump tears up his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in this case , the National Archives tried to do the right thing .
They sent staff to the White House to Scotch tape those papers back together again .
I ’ m not even kidding .
So , what happened to them — AMY GOODMAN : Say that again .
MATTHEW CONNELLY : They went to the White House to Scotch tape those pieces of paper back together again .
These are our federal employees having to fish out of the trash pieces of paper that Donald Trump had left there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of us .
And so , they Scotch taped those records back together .
So , what happened to those people ?
They were fired .
They were terminated .
So — AMY GOODMAN : And who did they work for ?
MATTHEW CONNELLY : They worked for the U.S. National Archives .
They worked for all of us , right ?
And this is what happened to them when they tried to stop this sort of thing .
So this administration has gone further than , I think , any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the Nixon White House to see anything like it .
And , in fact , that ’ s the whole reason why we have a Presidential Records Act , to prevent Watergate-style cover-ups .
So , I think more of us need to start paying attention , because , in effect , this White House is being allowed to destroy evidence about things that we may never know about .
AMY GOODMAN : You also talk about the whole issue of the Trump administration around declassification .
You tweeted yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Pentagon , blocked from declassifying Cold War documents.
” And at the CIA , as well .
MATTHEW CONNELLY : That ’ s right .
So , the State Department , under — again , federal law , an act of Congress , requires the State Department to produce a record of American foreign relations .
And they have been doing this since the Civil War .
So , for more than 150 years , State Department historians , who are professionally trained , highly competent and completely responsible , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us a record of what the government does in our name .
Sometimes these — and typically , these volumes , they come out 30 , 40 , sometimes even 50 years after the fact , because it takes that long to get the CIA and the Pentagon and the others to allow these documents to be released .
But what ’ s happened in most recent years is that the Pentagon has blocked the State Department from allowing the release of Pentagon documents , hundreds of these documents .
These documents date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and '80s , and they 're claiming that even now it ’ s dangerous to release them to the public .
AMY GOODMAN : So , give us your final thoughts — we have 20 seconds — around what people can do .
What can historians can do ?
MATTHEW CONNELLY : So , a lot of what ’ s happening at the National Archives is happening because they are being starved of resources .
They have a smaller budget now than they had back in 2008 .
That budget has been cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , if you actually care about having a court of history that can render some judgment about what ’ s happening in our time , then you have to let your congressmen and your senators know that you care about the past and you want to preserve it .
AMY GOODMAN : Do you think the National Archives will even keep information about President Trump being impeached ?
MATTHEW CONNELLY : You know , I think that the people there want to do the right thing .
They just need our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , we want to thank you , Matthew Connelly , professor of history at Columbia University , principal investigator at the History Lab .
And we ’ ll link to your piece , “ Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE.
” That does it for our show .
Democracy Now !
is accepting applications for a paid , year-long news production fellowship here in the New York City studio .
Learn more and apply at democracynow.org .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Thanks @ @ @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Last month, the National Archives and Records Administration apologized for doctoring a photo of the 2017 Women’s March to remove criticisms of President Trump. The Washington Post first revealed the agency, which calls itself the country’s record keeper, had altered the image. As part of an exhibit called “Rightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote,” the National Archives displayed a large image of the first Women’s March. But signs referencing Trump were blurred to remove his name, including a poster reading “God Hates Trump.” The National Archives initially stood behind its decision to edit the photo, saying the changes were made, quote, “so as not to engage in current political controversy,” unquote. But last month, the National Archives reversed course and apologized.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we turn now to a historian who says this was only the latest example of, quote, “a great and growing threat to our nation’s capacity to protect and learn from history.” Matthew Connelly is professor of history at Columbia University, principal investigator at History Lab, his recent piece for The New York Times headlined “Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE.” It details how the National Archives is reportedly allowing millions of documents, including many related to immigrant rights, to be expunged.
Professor Matthew Connelly, welcome to Democracy Now! Lay out what you found.
MATTHEW CONNELLY: Well, what I found is the National Archives, which, you know, as a matter of business, in the normal practice of archiving our nation’s record, they have to decide what records are going to be temporary and which ones they need to preserve permanently. And normally, these kinds of documents — they call them records retention schedules — are ones that almost nobody would actually read, except maybe an archivist or an historian. But in this case, it was fascinating, because what I found and what others have found is that records relating to the death, the sexual assault of undocumented immigrants had been designated as temporary. In other words, these were records they decided had to be deleted after sometimes three years, five years, 10 or, at most, 25 years, in this case.
So there was a big outcry. A lot of people — in fact, tens of thousands of people — spoke up in protest. Dozens of members of Congress and the Senate also voiced objections about this. But in December, the archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, announced that they were going to go ahead anyway. They had made some changes, but, in fact, huge numbers of records relating to shoddy medical care, the civil rights violations of these undocumented immigrants, all these records are going to start to be destroyed later this year.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, is there any precedent to this? I mean, who has been in charge? Who has made the decisions here? Do you know of any incident prior to the Trump administration where the National Archives were altered in this way?
MATTHEW CONNELLY: So, in fairness, the National Archives has a tough job, because, in effect, they have to predict the future. They have to try to figure out what it is that future historians, journalists, citizens are going to want to know about the past. But in the past, it was typically agencies, departments, like the CIA, the Pentagon, that would destroy what I think everyone could recognize were vitally important records here and now. So, for example, the CIA has a long history of destroying records of covert operations, mind control experiments and, most recently and notoriously, the torture videos. Similarly, the Pentagon destroyed all of the records of the deliberations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, in fact, decided to —
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, those kinds of documents would normally be in the National Archives?
MATTHEW CONNELLY: Well, one would hope, right? Because under the Federal Records Act, these are historically significant documents that should have been preserved. And it was a violation of federal law that these records were destroyed. So, normally, we’d trust the National Archives to be the watchdog to prevent other parts of the government from destroying the historical record. But, unfortunately, that’s not been happening.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you write, “The Department of the Interior and the National Archives have decided to delete files on endangered species, offshore drilling inspections and the safety of drinking water.” You also talk about, specifically, when we’re talking about ICE, that last month they announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Trump’s first year, including the detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care. Is this different from previous administrations?
MATTHEW CONNELLY: It is. I would say that under this administration things have gone much further, much faster. I think perhaps the best example of that is how Donald Trump tears up his own papers in tiny little pieces. Now, in this case, the National Archives tried to do the right thing. They sent staff to the White House to Scotch tape those papers back together again. I’m not even kidding. So, what happened to them —
AMY GOODMAN: Say that again.
MATTHEW CONNELLY: They went to the White House to Scotch tape those pieces of paper back together again. These are our federal employees having to fish out of the trash pieces of paper that Donald Trump had left there rather than leaving a record for the rest of us. And so, they Scotch taped those records back together. So, what happened to those people? They were fired. They were terminated. So —
AMY GOODMAN: And who did they work for?
MATTHEW CONNELLY: They worked for the U.S. National Archives. They worked for all of us, right? And this is what happened to them when they tried to stop this sort of thing. So this administration has gone further than, I think, any other administration before. You have to go back to the Nixon White House to see anything like it. And, in fact, that’s the whole reason why we have a Presidential Records Act, to prevent Watergate-style cover-ups. So, I think more of us need to start paying attention, because, in effect, this White House is being allowed to destroy evidence about things that we may never know about.
AMY GOODMAN: You also talk about the whole issue of the Trump administration around declassification. You tweeted yesterday, “State Department historians have been thwarted by the Pentagon, blocked from declassifying Cold War documents.” And at the CIA, as well.
MATTHEW CONNELLY: That’s right. So, the State Department, under — again, federal law, an act of Congress, requires the State Department to produce a record of American foreign relations. And they have been doing this since the Civil War. So, for more than 150 years, State Department historians, who are professionally trained, highly competent and completely responsible, have been trying to give the rest of us a record of what the government does in our name. Sometimes these — and typically, these volumes, they come out 30, 40, sometimes even 50 years after the fact, because it takes that long to get the CIA and the Pentagon and the others to allow these documents to be released. But what’s happened in most recent years is that the Pentagon has blocked the State Department from allowing the release of Pentagon documents, hundreds of these documents. These documents date all the way back to the 1970s and '80s, and they're claiming that even now it’s dangerous to release them to the public.
AMY GOODMAN: So, give us your final thoughts — we have 20 seconds — around what people can do. What can historians can do?
MATTHEW CONNELLY: So, a lot of what’s happening at the National Archives is happening because they are being starved of resources. They have a smaller budget now than they had back in 2008. That budget has been cut every year for the last three years. So, if you actually care about having a court of history that can render some judgment about what’s happening in our time, then you have to let your congressmen and your senators know that you care about the past and you want to preserve it.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the National Archives will even keep information about President Trump being impeached?
MATTHEW CONNELLY: You know, I think that the people there want to do the right thing. They just need our help in doing it.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you, Matthew Connelly, professor of history at Columbia University, principal investigator at the History Lab. And we’ll link to your piece, “Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE.”
That does it for our show. Democracy Now! is accepting applications for a paid, year-long news production fellowship here in the New York City studio. Learn more and apply at democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Thanks so much for joining us.