democracynow--2020-01-28--Murder of Mexican Artist Isabel Cabanillas Highlights Endemic Issue of Femicide in Ciudad Juárez

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , as we now turn to the city of Juárez , Chihuahua , Mexico , where the assassination of the beloved feminist artist Isabel Cabanillas de la Torre has refocused the spotlight on the border city ’ s painful legacy of femicide and violence against women .
Less than two weeks ago , Isabel was reported missing on social media by her friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was riding her bicycle in the early hours of Saturday , January 18th .
The 26-year-old was found shot to death on a sidewalk next to her bike in downtown Juárez .
Cabanillas reportedly was biking home after leaving a friends ’ gathering , when she was shot in the back of the head .
She ’ s survived by her 4-year-old son .
Isabel Cabanillas was a member of the feminist collective Hijas de su Maquilera Madre , Daughters of the Mother Maquilera .
She was a local painter and a clothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Observatory , a project that tracks crimes against women in Juárez .
This is Isabel speaking to a Juárez media outlet in April of 2019 .
ISABEL CABANILLAS : [ translated ] One of the reasons why I paint — well , aside from the fact that it has helped me overcome a lot of hard times — one night , I woke up , and I started thinking that I needed to do something for myself and for my child .
In fact , this is for him .
I sincerely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him , let him know that if he is passionate about something , that he can pursue it .
He just has to work really hard for it .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Isabel Cabanillas .
In the last three years , more than 300 women have been murdered in Juárez .
Since the beginning of 2020 , activists say , at least seven women have already been killed .
On Sunday , women and allies , dressed in black with pink masks , gathered at the Paso del Norte International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and El Paso , Texas , to protest Isabel ’ s murder .
They blocked off the bridge for at least three hours .
For more , we ’ re going to Juárez .
We ’ re joined by Skype by a friend of Isabel , Nana Rebell .
She ’ s a feminist activist in Juárez , a member of the same group .
But because she ’ s afraid of retaliation , she ’ s using a pseudonym and covering her face .
Nana Rebell , thank you so much for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who she was and what you understand about how she died , and the conditions for women in Juárez today .
NANA REBELL : Hi .
Well , Isabel was — well , she always presented herself as a painter and as a mother of her only 4-year son .
And she was a really sensitive and loving woman .
And Isabel didn ’ t label herself as a feminist , because she thought she hadn ’ t read enough women authors to label herself like that .
But in the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , she was a feminist .
She always — OK , so I don ’ t hold the microphone ?
AMY GOODMAN : Oh , we ’ re hearing you fine .
Just keep on speaking .
NANA REBELL : OK. On a day-to-day basis , she was a feminist , because she always loved first women .
She always was there on the protests for women ’ s rights .
She always had the fine sense and instinct for justice for women who have suffered misogyny , violence in their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she did for a living in her artistic job was painting on clothing , on jackets and on T-shirts .
And a lot of the labor she did on the community was giving , in the winter of 2019 , a collection of food and blankets and clothings for immigrants .
She was really public with her activism .
She was really in the spotlight .
She was also — in mural painting along the border , she painted a boy and a girl playing on the border .
And she was always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And she also fight — she was also a part of the ecofeminist movement at Ciudad Juárez , because she was fighting against a Canadian mine that wants to be put in the Samalayuca Desert .
And — AMY GOODMAN : Nana , we don ’ t have much time , and I was wondering if you can talk about the issue of femicide and the issue of police and how they deal with these murders , a major protest now demanding information about what happened to Isabel , and what you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OK. Well , femicide in Ciudad Juárez is something , sadly , very common .
And police and the state don ’ t do anything to solve these crimes .
Most of these crimes will stay unpunished forever .
Like , even though men go into court and they declare they kill their wife or their daughter or maybe their neighbor , they will be unpunished .
And it ’ s something really unbelievable , because in what we have of the year , we have reported eight women murdered in Ciudad Juárez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on January .
So , it ’ s a really red flag for women here in Ciudad Juárez .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Nana Rebell , I want to thank you so much for being with us .
We ’ re going to continue to follow the story about the murder of Isabel and continue to talk about the protests that are taking place , as you speak to us from Ciudad Juárez with your name changed to protect you from retaliation , with the level of femicide what it is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now !
When we come back , the renowned Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei .
We ’ ll talk about Mexico , as well .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we now turn to the city of Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico, where the assassination of the beloved feminist artist Isabel Cabanillas de la Torre has refocused the spotlight on the border city’s painful legacy of femicide and violence against women. Less than two weeks ago, Isabel was reported missing on social media by her friends after she never returned home. She was riding her bicycle in the early hours of Saturday, January 18th. The 26-year-old was found shot to death on a sidewalk next to her bike in downtown Juárez. Cabanillas reportedly was biking home after leaving a friends’ gathering, when she was shot in the back of the head. She’s survived by her 4-year-old son. Isabel Cabanillas was a member of the feminist collective Hijas de su Maquilera Madre, Daughters of the Mother Maquilera. She was a local painter and a clothing designer. Cabanillas was also involved with The Observatory, a project that tracks crimes against women in Juárez. This is Isabel speaking to a Juárez media outlet in April of 2019.
ISABEL CABANILLAS: [translated] One of the reasons why I paint — well, aside from the fact that it has helped me overcome a lot of hard times — one night, I woke up, and I started thinking that I needed to do something for myself and for my child. In fact, this is for him. I sincerely want to be a good role model for him, let him know that if he is passionate about something, that he can pursue it. He just has to work really hard for it.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Isabel Cabanillas. In the last three years, more than 300 women have been murdered in Juárez. Since the beginning of 2020, activists say, at least seven women have already been killed. On Sunday, women and allies, dressed in black with pink masks, gathered at the Paso del Norte International Bridge between the sister cities of Juárez and El Paso, Texas, to protest Isabel’s murder. They blocked off the bridge for at least three hours.
For more, we’re going to Juárez. We’re joined by Skype by a friend of Isabel, Nana Rebell. She’s a feminist activist in Juárez, a member of the same group. But because she’s afraid of retaliation, she’s using a pseudonym and covering her face.
Nana Rebell, thank you so much for joining us. Tell us about Isabel, who she was and what you understand about how she died, and the conditions for women in Juárez today.
NANA REBELL: Hi. Well, Isabel was — well, she always presented herself as a painter and as a mother of her only 4-year son. And she was a really sensitive and loving woman. And Isabel didn’t label herself as a feminist, because she thought she hadn’t read enough women authors to label herself like that. But in the end of the day, in her day-to-day life, she was a feminist. She always — OK, so I don’t hold the microphone?
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, we’re hearing you fine. Just keep on speaking.
NANA REBELL: OK. On a day-to-day basis, she was a feminist, because she always loved first women. She always was there on the protests for women’s rights. She always had the fine sense and instinct for justice for women who have suffered misogyny, violence in their lives. And Isabel, part of what she did for a living in her artistic job was painting on clothing, on jackets and on T-shirts. And a lot of the labor she did on the community was giving, in the winter of 2019, a collection of food and blankets and clothings for immigrants. She was really public with her activism. She was really in the spotlight. She was also — in mural painting along the border, she painted a boy and a girl playing on the border. And she was always active. She was always there. And she also fight — she was also a part of the ecofeminist movement at Ciudad Juárez, because she was fighting against a Canadian mine that wants to be put in the Samalayuca Desert. And —
AMY GOODMAN: Nana, we don’t have much time, and I was wondering if you can talk about the issue of femicide and the issue of police and how they deal with these murders, a major protest now demanding information about what happened to Isabel, and what you’re demanding now.
NANA REBELL: OK. Well, femicide in Ciudad Juárez is something, sadly, very common. And police and the state don’t do anything to solve these crimes. Most of these crimes will stay unpunished forever. Like, even though men go into court and they declare they kill their wife or their daughter or maybe their neighbor, they will be unpunished. And it’s something really unbelievable, because in what we have of the year, we have reported eight women murdered in Ciudad Juárez, and we only have 27 days on January. So, it’s a really red flag for women here in Ciudad Juárez.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Nana Rebell, I want to thank you so much for being with us. We’re going to continue to follow the story about the murder of Isabel and continue to talk about the protests that are taking place, as you speak to us from Ciudad Juárez with your name changed to protect you from retaliation, with the level of femicide what it is in Juárez, Mexico.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the renowned Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei. We’ll talk about Mexico, as well.


democracynow--2020-01-28--Trump's Expansive Claims of Executive Privilege Pose "Very Serious Constitutional Crisis"

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re broadcasting from Park City , Utah .
“ The president has done nothing wrong.
” That was the message President Trump ’ s lawyers repeatedly voiced during eight hours of oral arguments at the president ’ s impeachment trial in the Senate Monday .
But Trump ’ s legal team largely ignored the explosive revelations made by Trump ’ s former national security adviser John Bolton .
On Sunday night , The New York Times published details about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where he claims President Trump personally told him in August he wanted to maintain a freeze on $ 391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to former Vice President Joe Biden and supporters of Hillary Clinton in Ukraine .
Biden is Trump ’ s political rival for president .
Bolton sent a copy of the manuscript to the White House December 30th for review .
The withholding of congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine is at the center of the impeachment trial .
On Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney of Utah said the Bolton revelations underscore their case for allowing witnesses to testify .
AMY GOODMAN : On Monday , the president ’ s legal case was made by a team of lawyers , including retired Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz and former independent counsel Kenneth Starr , whose probe led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton .
During oral arguments , Starr referenced the Clinton impeachment trial .
AMY GOODMAN : President Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow accused Democrats of lowering the bar for impeachment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sekulow .
That ’ s President Trump ’ s personal lawyer , speaking on the Senate floor during Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
To talk more about the trial , we ’ re joined by Claire Finkelstein , professor of law and philosophy , and faculty director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at University of Pennsylvania , her recent piece for The New York Times headlined “ This Question Is More Important Than Removing Trump : Can a sitting president block witnesses at his own impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s begin there , this issue of President Trump claiming executive privilege and the whole issue of witnesses .
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN : Right .
Well , so , this is what we ’ re facing right now .
And as I wrote in The New York Times , it is even more important than removing the president to push back on the notion of executive privilege , which has become a broader and broader concept in recent years .
When you see arguments that seem to have a veneer of credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s legal team feels they can argue it with impunity , saying that the president actually has the right to block witnesses and refuse to turn over documents in his own impeachment trial , you know that that means that the Senate can not serve as the check and balance that the Founders designed it to serve .
And so , this is a moment of very serious constitutional crisis for our democracy , not because , or not only because , we have a president who is governing corruptly and who thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but , most importantly , because we have a Senate that is unable to act to remove the president because they are unable to push back on the president ’ s own obstruction of the process involved in impeachment .
AMY GOODMAN : On Monday , deputy counsel to the president Patrick Philbin argued executive privilege is a constitutional principle grounded in the separation of powers and must be respected .
This is what he said .
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN : This is a really important issue to deal with .
There were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with among the Trump legal team , but this is an issue that is worth dealing with , because there is some truth to their argument that executive privilege has been used by other presidents consistently over time and has been expanding over time .
But there was a lot of misleading argument regarding executive privilege in what Patrick Philbin said .
First of all , first and foremost in the history that he cited is that those presidents were not asserting executive privilege in the context of an impeachment .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really has no role to play when the president himself is being investigated for misdeeds that could remove him from office .
Now , the one exception to that is Nixon , who tried to assert executive privilege to withhold the tapes , but , in fact , the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he did not have the right to do that and that in fact he had to turn over the tapes .
And so , we do not see executive privilege used in this kind of context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify in a president ’ s impeachment .
There are other reasons why that is a misleading statement on Patrick Philbin ’ s part , which is that the Supreme Court has ruled on other occasions that executive privilege goes too far .
And so , we see that this is an issue that needs sorting out rather urgently .
AMY GOODMAN : Trump has claimed that Bolton should not testify because he knows his views on different world leaders and could make trouble in the future for him for divulging those views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And then we ’ ll talk about Ken Starr .
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN : Right .
So , there , it is critical that national — the national security interest be protected .
But beyond the mere restriction of classification , which would absolutely be respected in this instance , so there ’ s going to be no public testimony to classified information before the Senate — beyond protecting classification , it ’ s a pretty weak argument to suggest that if the president has been engaging in illicit deals and threatening other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can remain private because otherwise it will damage , in a general sort of way , his relationships with other leaders .
It ’ s a national security issue that the president thinks that he can strong-arm the president of another independent country into digging up dirt on a political rival .
That is a national security issue , and Congress has every right to investigate that issue .
It ’ s important that Bolton testify , because he really knows what the president did in that regard .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you look at the chronology of what we now understand .
The manuscript of Bolton ’ s book , you know , he has to get it approved before it is actually published .
The manuscript was sent to the White House December 30th .
President Trump then has Soleimani assassinated — I don ’ t know if there ’ s any connection — on January 3rd , a few days later .
Bolton tweets , you know , that this was long in the works , or this is something they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leading some to wonder if Trump wasn ’ t throwing out a bone to Bolton because he knew exactly what he would say if he testified , because the information was in the book that the White House had .
I want to turn to — and I want to get your comment on that , and then we ’ ll go to a next clip .
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN : Well , the most amazing part of that whole revelation is the fact that Mitch McConnell was so taken aback and thrown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House could be in perfect coordination with Mitch McConnell , as McConnell claims , but not tell them that this book was out there and that in fact they had received it a month before shows that the coordination was not so perfect .
About Soleimani , it ’ s very possible that the president was throwing a bone to John Bolton , but it ’ s also possible that there was a Wag the Dog scenario here and that the president , as he ’ s a master at doing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment hearings in the — AMY GOODMAN : Because he saw — right , because he saw it was coming .
So , but very interestingly , though the Bolton revelations are dominating the media and the talk in Washington , that ’ s not true at the Senate impeachment trial , though he was mentioned , in one of the only brief references to him , Bolton , by retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz , speaking at the impeachment trial .
This is what he said .
AMY GOODMAN : So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond — Professor Finkelstein , if you could respond to Alan Dershowitz and then also talk about the significance of Ken Starr ?
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN : Right .
Well , Dershowitz can say it all he wants , but making the argument that you can ’ t turn unimpeachable conduct into impeachable conduct by using words like ” quid pro quo ” doesn ’ t respond to the allegations .
There ’ s been very little here that responds to the substance of the allegations .
To the extent that there has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is insufficient proof that the quid pro quo actually existed .
For example , when they showed Ambassador Sondland saying “ I presume it was a quid pro quo , ” “ I assume it was quid pro quo , is my own assumption.
” That ’ s sort of casting doubt by raising questions about the burden of proof and suggesting , in effect , as though it were a real criminal trial , that there ’ s reasonable doubt about whether or not the quid pro quo existed .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verse and suggesting that he is willing to testify and ready to come into the Senate and tell what he knows , there goes the Republicans ’ argument , because it ’ s going to be very hard for them to maintain that in fact the quid pro quo did not happen .
AMY GOODMAN : Final comments , Professor Finkelstein , to leave us with today ?
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN : It looks as though it ’ s very likely that John Bolton will testify .
At this point , it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been saying that they favor witnesses not to vote in favor of Bolton testimony .
And this is a really important development .
Again , it ’ s important not just because it could be a game changer as far as the result goes , but it ’ s important because it ’ s pushing back on the president ’ s own obstruction of the process .
And so , it ’ s a little bit of incremental resistance to Donald Trump ’ s ability to block witnesses and make the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that John Bolton is willing to step up to the plate and do this .
And we ’ ll see what that brings .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Claire Finkelstein , I want to thank you for being with us , professor of law and philosophy , and faculty director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania , speaking to us from Philadelphia .
We ’ ll link to your piece in The New York Times , “ This Question Is More Important Than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block witnesses at his own impeachment trial ?
” When we come back , feminist and artist Isabel Cabanillas de la Torre has been slain in Juárez , Mexico .
We ’ ll go to Juárez to talk about the issue of femicide .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from Park City, Utah. “The president has done nothing wrong.” That was the message President Trump’s lawyers repeatedly voiced during eight hours of oral arguments at the president’s impeachment trial in the Senate Monday. But Trump’s legal team largely ignored the explosive revelations made by Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton. On Sunday night, The New York Times published details about a draft of Bolton’s forthcoming book, where he claims President Trump personally told him in August he wanted to maintain a freeze on $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to former Vice President Joe Biden and supporters of Hillary Clinton in Ukraine. Biden is Trump’s political rival for president. Bolton sent a copy of the manuscript to the White House December 30th for review. The withholding of congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine is at the center of the impeachment trial. On Monday, Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah said the Bolton revelations underscore their case for allowing witnesses to testify.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY: I think it’s important to be able to hear from John Bolton for us to be able to make an impartial judgment.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, the president’s legal case was made by a team of lawyers, including retired Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz and former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose probe led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. During oral arguments, Starr referenced the Clinton impeachment trial.
KEN STARR: The nation’s most recent experience, the Clinton impeachment, even though severely and roundly criticized, charged crimes. These were crimes proven, and the crucible of the House of Representatives’ debate, beyond any reasonable observer’s doubt. So, too, the Nixon impeachment. The articles charged crimes. … Were crimes alleged in the articles in the common law of presidential impeachment? In Nixon, yes. In Clinton, yes. Here, no.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow accused Democrats of lowering the bar for impeachment.
JAY SEKULOW: We live in a constitutional republic where you have deep policy concerns and deep differences. That should not be the basis of an impeachment. If the bar of impeachment has now reached that level, then, for the sake of the republic, the danger that puts not just this body but our entire constitutional framework in is unimaginable. Are we going to have, every time there’s a policy difference of significance or an approach difference of significance about a policy — we’re going to start an impeachment proceeding? You know, as I said earlier, I don’t really think this was about just a phone call. There was a pattern and practice of attempts over a three-year period to not only interfere with the president’s capability to govern, which, by the way, they were completely unsuccessful at — just look at the state of where we are as a country — but also interfere with our constitutional framework.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Jay Sekulow. That’s President Trump’s personal lawyer, speaking on the Senate floor during Trump’s impeachment trial.
To talk more about the trial, we’re joined by Claire Finkelstein, professor of law and philosophy, and faculty director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at University of Pennsylvania, her recent piece for The New York Times headlined “This Question Is More Important Than Removing Trump: Can a sitting president block witnesses at his own impeachment trial?”
Well, Professor Finkelstein, let’s begin there, this issue of President Trump claiming executive privilege and the whole issue of witnesses.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: Right. Well, so, this is what we’re facing right now. And as I wrote in The New York Times, it is even more important than removing the president to push back on the notion of executive privilege, which has become a broader and broader concept in recent years. When you see arguments that seem to have a veneer of credibility, enough so that the president’s legal team feels they can argue it with impunity, saying that the president actually has the right to block witnesses and refuse to turn over documents in his own impeachment trial, you know that that means that the Senate cannot serve as the check and balance that the Founders designed it to serve. And so, this is a moment of very serious constitutional crisis for our democracy, not because, or not only because, we have a president who is governing corruptly and who thinks he can do whatever he wants, but, most importantly, because we have a Senate that is unable to act to remove the president because they are unable to push back on the president’s own obstruction of the process involved in impeachment.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, deputy counsel to the president Patrick Philbin argued executive privilege is a constitutional principle grounded in the separation of powers and must be respected. This is what he said.
PATRICK PHILBIN: The second principle that the Trump administration asserted was that some of these subpoenas purported to require the president’s senior advisers, his close advisers, to testify. Following at least 50 years of precedent, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel advised that three senior advisers to the president — the acting White House chief of staff, the legal adviser to the National Security Council and the deputy national security adviser — were absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony. And based on that advice from the Office of Legal Counsel, the president directed those advisers not to testify. Administrations of both political parties have asserted this immunity since the 1970s. President Obama asserted it as to the director of Office of Political Strategy and Outreach. President George W. Bush asserted it as to his former counsel and to his White House chief of staff. President Clinton asserted it as to two of his counsels. President Reagan asserted it as to his counsel, Fred Fielding. And President Nixon asserted it. This is not something that was just made up recently. There is a decades-long history of the Department of Justice providing the opinion that senior advisers to the president are immune from compelled congressional testimony.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Trump’s lawyer Patrick Philbin. Professor Finkelstein, your response?
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: This is a really important issue to deal with. There were a lot of points that were not worth dealing with among the Trump legal team, but this is an issue that is worth dealing with, because there is some truth to their argument that executive privilege has been used by other presidents consistently over time and has been expanding over time. But there was a lot of misleading argument regarding executive privilege in what Patrick Philbin said.
First of all, first and foremost in the history that he cited is that those presidents were not asserting executive privilege in the context of an impeachment. And it should be clear that executive privilege really has no role to play when the president himself is being investigated for misdeeds that could remove him from office. Now, the one exception to that is Nixon, who tried to assert executive privilege to withhold the tapes, but, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he did not have the right to do that and that in fact he had to turn over the tapes. And so, we do not see executive privilege used in this kind of context to actually bar witnesses from coming to testify in a president’s impeachment.
There are other reasons why that is a misleading statement on Patrick Philbin’s part, which is that the Supreme Court has ruled on other occasions that executive privilege goes too far. And so, we see that this is an issue that needs sorting out rather urgently.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump has claimed that Bolton should not testify because he knows his views on different world leaders and could make trouble in the future for him for divulging those views. If you could respond to that? And then we’ll talk about Ken Starr.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: Right. So, there, it is critical that national — the national security interest be protected. But beyond the mere restriction of classification, which would absolutely be respected in this instance, so there’s going to be no public testimony to classified information before the Senate — beyond protecting classification, it’s a pretty weak argument to suggest that if the president has been engaging in illicit deals and threatening other world leaders, like Zelensky, that that can remain private because otherwise it will damage, in a general sort of way, his relationships with other leaders. It’s a national security issue that the president thinks that he can strong-arm the president of another independent country into digging up dirt on a political rival. That is a national security issue, and Congress has every right to investigate that issue. It’s important that Bolton testify, because he really knows what the president did in that regard.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Finkelstein, it’s amazing when you look at the chronology of what we now understand. The manuscript of Bolton’s book, you know, he has to get it approved before it is actually published. The manuscript was sent to the White House December 30th. President Trump then has Soleimani assassinated — I don’t know if there’s any connection — on January 3rd, a few days later. Bolton tweets, you know, that this was long in the works, or this is something they had worked on for a long time, leading some to wonder if Trump wasn’t throwing out a bone to Bolton because he knew exactly what he would say if he testified, because the information was in the book that the White House had. I want to turn to — and I want to get your comment on that, and then we’ll go to a next clip.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: Well, the most amazing part of that whole revelation is the fact that Mitch McConnell was so taken aback and thrown off guard by it. That the White House could be in perfect coordination with Mitch McConnell, as McConnell claims, but not tell them that this book was out there and that in fact they had received it a month before shows that the coordination was not so perfect. About Soleimani, it’s very possible that the president was throwing a bone to John Bolton, but it’s also possible that there was a Wag the Dog scenario here and that the president, as he’s a master at doing, was trying to distract from the coming impeachment hearings in the —
AMY GOODMAN: Because he saw — right, because he saw it was coming. So, but very interestingly, though the Bolton revelations are dominating the media and the talk in Washington, that’s not true at the Senate impeachment trial, though he was mentioned, in one of the only brief references to him, Bolton, by retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, speaking at the impeachment trial. This is what he said.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: If a president, any president, were to have done what the Times reported about the context of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like ”quid pro quo” and “personal benefit.”
AMY GOODMAN: So, Professor Finkelstein, if you could respond — Professor Finkelstein, if you could respond to Alan Dershowitz and then also talk about the significance of Ken Starr?
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: Right. Well, Dershowitz can say it all he wants, but making the argument that you can’t turn unimpeachable conduct into impeachable conduct by using words like ”quid pro quo” doesn’t respond to the allegations. There’s been very little here that responds to the substance of the allegations.
To the extent that there has been an argument, it’s that there is insufficient proof that the quid pro quo actually existed. For example, when they showed Ambassador Sondland saying “I presume it was a quid pro quo,” “I assume it was quid pro quo, is my own assumption.” That’s sort of casting doubt by raising questions about the burden of proof and suggesting, in effect, as though it were a real criminal trial, that there’s reasonable doubt about whether or not the quid pro quo existed.
But when you have Bolton giving chapter and verse and suggesting that he is willing to testify and ready to come into the Senate and tell what he knows, there goes the Republicans’ argument, because it’s going to be very hard for them to maintain that in fact the quid pro quo did not happen.
AMY GOODMAN: Final comments, Professor Finkelstein, to leave us with today?
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: It looks as though it’s very likely that John Bolton will testify. At this point, it will be very difficult for the Republican senators who have been saying that they favor witnesses not to vote in favor of Bolton testimony. And this is a really important development. Again, it’s important not just because it could be a game changer as far as the result goes, but it’s important because it’s pushing back on the president’s own obstruction of the process. And so, it’s a little bit of incremental resistance to Donald Trump’s ability to block witnesses and make the process meaningless. It’s very important that John Bolton is willing to step up to the plate and do this. And we’ll see what that brings.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Claire Finkelstein, I want to thank you for being with us, professor of law and philosophy, and faculty director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, speaking to us from Philadelphia. We’ll link to your piece in The New York Times, “This Question Is More Important Than Removing Trump: Can a sitting president block witnesses at his own impeachment trial?”
When we come back, feminist and artist Isabel Cabanillas de la Torre has been slain in Juárez, Mexico. We’ll go to Juárez to talk about the issue of femicide. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-28--Headlines for January 28, 2020

Headlines for January 28, 2020

President Trump ’ s legal team is concluding its defense in Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial today as the explosive revelations from former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s leaked manuscript continue to rock Capitol Hill .
On Monday , Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued Bolton ’ s claim that Trump conditioned military aid to Ukraine on investigations into Democrats , including Trump ’ s political rival Joe Biden , does not constitute an impeachable offense .
Republican Utah Senator Mitt Romney told reporters it was “ increasingly likely ” at least four Republicans would side with Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to testify .
John Bolton has said that he would answer questions before the Senate if subpoenaed .
Another member of Trump ’ s legal team , Kenneth Starr , whose investigation led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton , warned that impeaching Trump would be too divisive .
Ken Starr : “ Like war , impeachment is hell .
Or at least presidential impeachment is hell .
Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment , including members of this body , full well understand that a presidential impeachment is tantamount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more on the impeachment of President Trump after headlines with University of Pennsylvania professor Claire Finkelstein .

President Trump’s legal team is concluding its defense in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial today as the explosive revelations from former national security adviser John Bolton’s leaked manuscript continue to rock Capitol Hill. On Monday, Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued Bolton’s claim that Trump conditioned military aid to Ukraine on investigations into Democrats, including Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, does not constitute an impeachable offense.
Republican Utah Senator Mitt Romney told reporters it was “increasingly likely” at least four Republicans would side with Democrats to vote in favor of calling witnesses to testify. John Bolton has said that he would answer questions before the Senate if subpoenaed.
Another member of Trump’s legal team, Kenneth Starr, whose investigation led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, warned that impeaching Trump would be too divisive.
Ken Starr: “Like war, impeachment is hell. Or at least presidential impeachment is hell. Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment, including members of this body, full well understand that a presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic war.”
We’ll have more on the impeachment of President Trump after headlines with University of Pennsylvania professor Claire Finkelstein.


democracynow--2020-01-29--South Dakota May Criminalize Lifesaving Healthcare for Trans Youth in Latest Attack on LGBTQ Rights

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
The South Dakota Legislature is expected to debate a bill today that would criminalize gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth .
If passed , House Bill 1057 would make it a felony for doctors to provide anyone under the age of 16 with puberty blockers , hormones and other transition-related healthcare .
Medical professionals who do provide this care would face up to 10 years in prison .
The Republican-backed bill passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a transgender youth , testified against the South Dakota bill in the Legislature .
AMY GOODMAN : On Tuesday , South Dakota introduced another anti-trans bill , that would authorize parents to deny gender-affirming treatment to their children .
It ’ s the third bill targeting trans youth introduced in South Dakota this year alone and one of more than 25 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced around the country .
On Monday , I spoke to Chase Strangio , deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU ’ s LGBT & HIV Project , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who became the first openly transgender director nominated for an Oscar for his film Strong Island in 2018 .
I began by asking Chase Strangio to talk about what exactly is happening in South Dakota .
CHASE STRANGIO : What we ’ re seeing , over the course of the last five years , are escalations in attacks from state lawmakers on LGBTQ people , particularly on trans youth .
And this year , South Dakota has a bill that will actually criminalize lifesaving care for trans young people .
So we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy of Pediatrics recommends , that the American Medical Association recommends .
Just last week , a study came out documenting that the provision of this very care reduces suicidality in transgender young people .
So now we have lawmakers disregarding science , disregarding the urgent needs of the trans community , and saying , “ We do not care that you might die .
We are going to make your healthcare , and indeed your life , a crime.
” So , I have to say , having done this work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most drastic measures that I ’ ve seen moving through a state legislature .
And it ’ s at risk of passing .
CHASE STRANGIO : Yeah .
So , these bills criminalize healthcare that has been provided to trans young people for decades , including puberty blockers , which are medical interventions that really just put a pause on puberty so young people are able to affirm their gender and ultimately go through puberty consistent with who they are .
And these are medications that are used for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill , they would be perfectly fine if used for other conditions .
Only for transgender young people would they become a crime .
And the same is true with the hormone therapy that the legislation would criminalize .
And again , the lawmakers supporting the bill are talking about surgery , but the bill criminalizes many nonsurgical interventions for trans youth that have been utilized to save lives and ensure that trans young people have comparable health outcomes to their nontransgender peers .
You know , the ACLU has made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they pass this bill .
And we are driving support all across the country for the trans community , making sure that every single lawmaker in South Dakota knows that we are watching their vote in the House , and if it moves from the House to the Senate , we will be holding them accountable there , as well .
So , you know , hopefully , this means that they ’ re reconsidering their votes and that we can ultimately stop this thing .
But no matter what , whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to keep pushing the governor to make sure that she knows that those concerns are legitimate , and she should absolutely veto this bill if it gets to her desk .
And if she does sign the bill into law , then we will see her in court .
YANCE FORD : I was appalled .
I was appalled to listen to a legislator who was claiming , under the auspices of protecting vulnerable children , to have the right to insert himself and his beliefs into lifesaving medical treatment that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with actual medical training , science behind them — to provide children in South Dakota with gender-affirming treatment that children and their parents seek out .
It was amazing to me to hear someone actually claim that a , quote-unquote , “ natural pause ” — right ?
— the pause that would allow for puberty to kick in , and , quote-unquote , “ solve some children ’ s gender dysphoria.
” It was like — it was like tuning into a broadcast from Mars , where the crazy people had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all of a sudden , doctors and psychiatrists and endocrinologists and knew better than the hundred years of collected medicalism alone , in addition to the parents in the room .
It never ceases to amaze me how determined people are to erase trans people , even when they ’ re children .
Like , I remember when I was 16 , 15 , 14 , being fully aware of what I was dealing with .
And if I had had those choices , if my parents had had those choices when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had a different childhood .
And that someone wants to say , “ No , you can not provide love and care and medical treatment and affirmation to your child , because I think that transgender is a made-up category , ” it was — I was furious .
I was furious .
And I think that the thing that is — the most scary thing about that for me is that it ’ s not just South Dakota .
There are , I think , 13 other states that are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation that was introduced by this lunatic .
And what we do also know is that when young people are given access to the very medication that is being criminalized by this bill , those suicide rates drop to being comparable to nontransgender peers .
And so , we have lawmakers equipped with information about how young people can either live or die , and they are choosing , quite clearly , the path of increasing the likelihood that our communities suffer serious harm , including early death .
And , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young person , and I struggled so much , but I didn ’ t have lawmakers telling me that my care should be criminalized .
Now we ’ re in a context where that ’ s what lawmakers are saying to the youth who are watching .
And we know that they are hurting because of it .
And the second type of bill that we ’ re also seeing in about eight or nine states are bills that would bar trans athletes from participating in scholastic athletics consistent with who they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many bills we ’ ve seen in the past , are fundamentally connected to controlling the bodies of all people .
For example , some of these bills talk about how if any girl is “ disputed ” as a girl , they have to bring in medical documentation of their internal and external reproductive organs , their chromosomes and their naturally occurring hormone levels .
I mean , that is going to be an unbelievable amount of the policing of the bodies of all young women and girls .
And so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have a sweeping impact across the country , not just on trans young people , but on any young person who doesn ’ t fit very specific norms of gender .
And this is just the beginning of session , so I expect we ’ re going to see a lot more .
AMY GOODMAN : Chase Strangio , deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU ’ s LGBT & HIV Project .
Yance Ford , as well , first openly transgender director nominated for an Oscar award for his film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does it for our show .
We ’ ll be live-streaming the Senate impeachment trial starting at 1 p.m. Eastern time today , as we do every day during the impeachment trial .
On Thursday , we ’ ll be joined by the actor , the director , the writer Viggo Mortensen about his new film called Falling and Thursday ’ s performance here in Salt Lake City — rather , in Park City , at the Egyptian Theatre of Howard Zinn ’ s A People ’ s History of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zinn died 10 years ago this week .
I ’ ll also be speaking 2:00 on Friday here in Park City at the Park City Museum right next to Dolly ’ s Bookstore .
You can check it out at democracynow.org .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. The South Dakota Legislature is expected to debate a bill today that would criminalize gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth. If passed, House Bill 1057 would make it a felony for doctors to provide anyone under the age of 16 with puberty blockers, hormones and other transition-related healthcare. Medical professionals who do provide this care would face up to 10 years in prison. The Republican-backed bill passed in committee last week. Quincy Parke, a transgender youth, testified against the South Dakota bill in the Legislature.
QUINCY PARKE: Let me be clear: As someone who researched my own treatment options and someone who this bill would directly affect, what you’re doing is not preventing harm. You are actively denying medical treatment to children who have such strong feelings of disconnect from their bodies that over half of them are or have been suicidal at some point in their lives.
AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday, South Dakota introduced another anti-trans bill, that would authorize parents to deny gender-affirming treatment to their children. It’s the third bill targeting trans youth introduced in South Dakota this year alone and one of more than 25 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced around the country.
On Monday, I spoke to Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, and the award-winning director Yance Ford, who became the first openly transgender director nominated for an Oscar for his film Strong Island in 2018. I began by asking Chase Strangio to talk about what exactly is happening in South Dakota.
CHASE STRANGIO: What we’re seeing, over the course of the last five years, are escalations in attacks from state lawmakers on LGBTQ people, particularly on trans youth. And this year, South Dakota has a bill that will actually criminalize lifesaving care for trans young people. So we’re talking about care that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends, that the American Medical Association recommends. Just last week, a study came out documenting that the provision of this very care reduces suicidality in transgender young people. So now we have lawmakers disregarding science, disregarding the urgent needs of the trans community, and saying, “We do not care that you might die. We are going to make your healthcare, and indeed your life, a crime.” So, I have to say, having done this work for a long time, this truly is one of the most drastic measures that I’ve seen moving through a state legislature. And it’s at risk of passing.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, if you can also explain both the science of these drugs, but then what this bill says, that they would put a medical provider in jail for up to 10 years for engaging in medical treatment of a patient?
CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah. So, these bills criminalize healthcare that has been provided to trans young people for decades, including puberty blockers, which are medical interventions that really just put a pause on puberty so young people are able to affirm their gender and ultimately go through puberty consistent with who they are. And these are medications that are used for a range of different conditions. And under the bill, they would be perfectly fine if used for other conditions. Only for transgender young people would they become a crime. And the same is true with the hormone therapy that the legislation would criminalize. And again, the lawmakers supporting the bill are talking about surgery, but the bill criminalizes many nonsurgical interventions for trans youth that have been utilized to save lives and ensure that trans young people have comparable health outcomes to their nontransgender peers.
And the bill itself is a bill targeting medical professionals, which would not only compromise their licensure, but criminalize the care that they provide, including potentially throwing medical providers in jail for providing care that would save the lives of their patients. And at the committee hearing in the House, the head of the South Dakota Academy of Pediatrics testified that they had 200 years of physician experience in the room and that the Legislature was urging them to make a decision between jail and saving the lives of their patients. And even in the face of that testimony, they moved this bill forward.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the bill’s sponsor. This is South Dakota Republican legislator Fred Deutsch speaking in a video posted on the Family Heritage Alliance Facebook page. REP. FRED DEUTSCH: It’s a bill to help, like I said, with these children that are suffering. It prevents surgeries. It prevents prescription of puberty blockers, to block their normal developmental puberty, as well as gives them strong cross-sex hormones. So, if they’re a boy, it would prevent strong applications of estrogen, and if you’re a girl, the testosterone. Both of them mess children up terribly. We’re talking about mutilation, sterilization and a host of other medical complications, thinning of the bones, brain issues, heart issues. It’s just crazy, what’s going on. We’re trying to protect our kids.
AMY GOODMAN: So that’s South Dakota Republican legislator Fred Deutsch, the sponsor of the bill. Chase Strangio, he says he’s saving children’s lives. Respond to his arguments.
CHASE STRANGIO: I mean, I think the first and most important response is that he’s actually killing children. And he is a chiropractor who every single year introduces multiple bills targeting the trans community. And every year we fight those bills with the truth of our lives, with science on our side, with business on our side, with whole communities showing that what he is doing is a systematic attack on our community.
But I have to say, it is getting so difficult, year after year, to hear these attacks. We already lost one of our lead trans advocates in South Dakota to suicide, who fought against these bills. And now we have lawmakers distorting science in the service of actually, through documentation, acting in ways that will kill young trans people. And so, I have to say, I used to think it was about fear or confusion, and now I truly think that they are implementing a plan that they actively don’t want us to survive. And we are every day going to fight back against that.
AMY GOODMAN: Chase Strangio, can you talk about the fact that this bill, the vote on the bill, has been delayed from Monday to, we believe, Wednesday? Is there something significant in this? Are they getting a lot of response from around the country? And also, if you can comment on the South Dakota governor, Governor Kristi Noem, who has said she has, quote, “a few concerns” about the bill? What do you understand are her hesitations?
CHASE STRANGIO: So, you know, we don’t know exactly why the vote was delayed, but I am going to interpret it as favorable to our side. It gives us more time to push people to continue to contact their lawmakers. And it did come after the governor expressed concerns about the bill. She specifically noted that the bill interferes with the parental right to dictate the healthcare for their minor children, which is a long-standing fundamental right.
You know, the ACLU has made it clear that we will sue them if they pass this bill. And we are driving support all across the country for the trans community, making sure that every single lawmaker in South Dakota knows that we are watching their vote in the House, and if it moves from the House to the Senate, we will be holding them accountable there, as well. So, you know, hopefully, this means that they’re reconsidering their votes and that we can ultimately stop this thing. But no matter what, whether it passes both chambers, we’re going to keep pushing the governor to make sure that she knows that those concerns are legitimate, and she should absolutely veto this bill if it gets to her desk. And if she does sign the bill into law, then we will see her in court.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to bring Yance Ford into this conversation, who is also here in Park City, Utah. Chase, you were just here but went back to New York. Both of you are featured in this new incredible documentary called Disclosure, about trans life. But Yance Ford is the first openly trans director to be nominated for an Oscar. And last week, though you weren’t in South Dakota, Yance, you were tuning in through the stream of South Dakota Public Broadcasting, watching this debate closely. Your response to what you were seeing on the floor of the South Dakota Legislature?
YANCE FORD: I was appalled. I was appalled to listen to a legislator who was claiming, under the auspices of protecting vulnerable children, to have the right to insert himself and his beliefs into lifesaving medical treatment that is provided by professionals — doctors, actual people with actual medical training, science behind them — to provide children in South Dakota with gender-affirming treatment that children and their parents seek out. It was amazing to me to hear someone actually claim that a, quote-unquote, “natural pause” — right? — the pause that would allow for puberty to kick in, and, quote-unquote, “solve some children’s gender dysphoria.” It was like — it was like tuning into a broadcast from Mars, where the crazy people had taken charge of the Legislature and were, all of a sudden, doctors and psychiatrists and endocrinologists and knew better than the hundred years of collected medicalism alone, in addition to the parents in the room.
It never ceases to amaze me how determined people are to erase trans people, even when they’re children. Like, I remember when I was 16, 15, 14, being fully aware of what I was dealing with. And if I had had those choices, if my parents had had those choices when I was that age, I would have had a different childhood. And that someone wants to say, “No, you cannot provide love and care and medical treatment and affirmation to your child, because I think that transgender is a made-up category,” it was — I was furious. I was furious. And I think that the thing that is — the most scary thing about that for me is that it’s not just South Dakota. There are, I think, 13 other states that are going to introduce legislation almost identical to the legislation that was introduced by this lunatic.
AMY GOODMAN: And I want to get to that, the other legislation. But first, Chase Strangio, in 2016, you wrote a piece on the ACLU’s blog titled “If I Were a Student in South Dakota, Chances Are I Would Not Survive into Adulthood.” You talked about suicidality. Can you give us the figures on trans youth taking their own lives?
CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, no, it’s staggering. And I wrote that piece in 2016 because South Dakota was in the exact same position, considering a bill to bar trans young people from accessing the restroom consistent with who they are. And we’re talking about a community that has documented rates of suicidality that are close to 50%. And those documented rates are directly tied to discrimination that people face in every aspect of life. And when you have government officials with the most power in the state telling young people that they either don’t exist or that they shouldn’t, we know that that exacerbates the rates of suicide.
And what we do also know is that when young people are given access to the very medication that is being criminalized by this bill, those suicide rates drop to being comparable to nontransgender peers. And so, we have lawmakers equipped with information about how young people can either live or die, and they are choosing, quite clearly, the path of increasing the likelihood that our communities suffer serious harm, including early death. And, you know, I think about myself as a young person, and I struggled so much, but I didn’t have lawmakers telling me that my care should be criminalized. Now we’re in a context where that’s what lawmakers are saying to the youth who are watching. And we know that they are hurting because of it.
And so, I am just going to be out here every single day, and I know that my other trans folks are, too, to make sure that we tell young people that we are going to fight for them and that we stop these things from becoming law, so that people’s medication and people’s lifesaving support is not immediately cut off and criminalized.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about the legislation that is being introduced around the country right now, the anti-trans legislation?
CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah. So, the bill in South Dakota is typical of one of two bills that we’re seeing this year that have been introduced in over a dozen states. The bills are both the bills targeting young people through the criminalization or other bans on access to healthcare, including bills that propose intervening through Child Protective Services for parents who support their trans young people. So, imagine how important it is to have parental support. We’re actually seeing proposals to make that support itself potentially a reason to remove a child from a home. So that is another way that we’re talking about incredibly dangerous interventions in the survival of trans young people.
And the second type of bill that we’re also seeing in about eight or nine states are bills that would bar trans athletes from participating in scholastic athletics consistent with who they are. And those bills, like so many bills we’ve seen in the past, are fundamentally connected to controlling the bodies of all people. For example, some of these bills talk about how if any girl is “disputed” as a girl, they have to bring in medical documentation of their internal and external reproductive organs, their chromosomes and their naturally occurring hormone levels. I mean, that is going to be an unbelievable amount of the policing of the bodies of all young women and girls. And so, we’re talking about legislation that will have a sweeping impact across the country, not just on trans young people, but on any young person who doesn’t fit very specific norms of gender. And this is just the beginning of session, so I expect we’re going to see a lot more.
AMY GOODMAN: And what are the states to look at here, where these bills are being introduced?
CHASE STRANGIO: So, you know, we’re following South Dakota closely. We have bills in Kentucky, in Oklahoma, in Georgia, in Washington, in Tennessee, in Indiana, in New Hampshire. I expect that we’re going to see more. Arizona has a few bills pending. Every state is on a different timeline in terms of how quickly these things will move. I think that whatever happens in South Dakota will ultimately set the tone for the rest of session, so it’s critical that we stop that bill there, so that we can continue to build momentum to ensure that we’re able to protect trans young people from these really egregious attacks all over the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, can you talk about the parallels to anti-choice legislation around the country? I mean, it sounds so similar to arguments made against abortion, legislators trying to say that it’s the abortion that will endanger a woman’s life, as opposed to a backstreet alley abortion. Are we seeing parallel legislation in these states?
CHASE STRANGIO: Absolutely. We are seeing the reality that our gender justice movements are completely tied together, and our opponents are operating out of the same playbooks. The very things that have progressed through the anti-choice movement over the years around criminalizing the bodies of people who are pregnant, around restricting access to bodily autonomy and then criminalizing the medical providers who provide medical care, that is well supported by the medical profession, is exactly what we’re seeing here. And it’s in the same states. You know, for example, in Georgia, where they threatened to introduce a criminal ban on healthcare for trans young people, they passed a criminal ban on a 10-week abortion ban. So they’re following the exact same playbook across the country, and they’re working together.
So I think it’s important that we remind ourselves that we have to work together, too, because all of these fights are about whether or not we’re ultimately going to be able to retain control over our body and our self-determination, and that is going to impact every aspect of our lives — you know, our ability to control our futures in the labor market, our education, our opportunities, our family planning. And these are critical LGBT issues, gender justice issues and racial and economic justice issues, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. Yance Ford, as well, first openly transgender director nominated for an Oscar award for his film Strong Island in 2018.
And that does it for our show. We’ll be live-streaming the Senate impeachment trial starting at 1 p.m. Eastern time today, as we do every day during the impeachment trial.
On Thursday, we’ll be joined by the actor, the director, the writer Viggo Mortensen about his new film called Falling and Thursday’s performance here in Salt Lake City — rather, in Park City, at the Egyptian Theatre of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. The late, great historian Howard Zinn died 10 years ago this week. I’ll also be speaking 2:00 on Friday here in Park City at the Park City Museum right next to Dolly’s Bookstore. You can check it out at democracynow.org.


democracynow--2020-01-29--Mehdi Hasan: The Impeachment Trial Has Been a Farce Since Day One Filled with GOP Lies

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We continue with Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept , talking about the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump .
On Tuesday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told fellow Republican senators in a private meeting he doesn ’ t yet have the votes to block Democrats from calling impeachment witnesses .
Democrats have pushed for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify .
On Sunday night , The New York Times published details about a manuscript of Bolton ’ s forthcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told him he wanted to maintain a freeze on $ 391 million in military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine turned over materials related to his political rival Joe Biden .
On Tuesday , Trump ’ s defense team wrapped up their opening arguments .
Trump ’ s lawyers , including Jay Sekulow , repeatedly tried to dismiss the reports about Bolton as “ allegations.
” AMY GOODMAN : The impeachment trial continues today for a phase where senators will have 16 hours to ask questions to the House impeachment managers and the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t do it directly .
To talk more about impeachment , we ’ re still with Mehdi Hasan in Washington , senior columnist at The Intercept and host of the Deconstructed podcast , also host of UpFront at Al Jazeera English .
So , it looks like the vote will come on Friday on whether there will be witnesses .
You have President Trump ’ s former Chief of Staff General John Kelly , not always a fan of John Bolton , essentially calling Trump a liar , saying he believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he directly told Bolton that he was withholding the aid to Ukraine to get them to investigate his political rival Joe Biden .
Talk about the significance of what ’ s happened so far .
MEHDI HASAN : Yeah , it ’ s very significant , in the sense , Amy , that it ’ s yet another reminder that Donald Trump is a liar , as you mentioned John Kelly calling him a liar .
He ’ s lied this morning on Twitter .
He ’ s just put out a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies , claiming that , you know , witnesses are only for the House , not the Senate , which is not true , and other multiple false statements .
So it ’ s not only significant in that it ’ s a reminder that the Trump administration and the GOP in the Senate and the House are lying to us about all of this , but it ’ s also a reminder about how this trial is not really a trial , because it doesn ’ t involve any witnesses at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials in the Senate since the beginning of the United States .
That ’ s including judges , not just two presidents , Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton .
In every single one of those 15 impeachment trials , there have been witnesses .
At the Bill Clinton impeachment trial , in which Mitch McConnell was involved , there were three witnesses : Monica Lewinsky , Sidney Blumenthal and Vernon Jordan .
The idea that you can have a trial without any witnesses , I think , is absurd .
I think even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would accept that that premise is absurd , the idea that you have a trial , but there are no witnesses .
The idea that you have a trial in which jurors , because that ’ s what the Republican senators are , are going on the record saying , “ We ’ re coordinating with the White House ; we have no interest in being fair or impartial , ” as Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have said , that would not happen in any other trial .
So this whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
You mentioned Jay Sekulow .
He ’ s been lying to us since day one , lying about the entire process .
Multiple factually inaccurate statements put forward — and fact-checked in real time — by the Trump legal team .
And now you have this John Bolton revelation , which is hugely ironic , because we ’ ve always known that John Bolton wanted regime change around the world ; I just didn ’ t realize he wanted regime change in Washington , D.C. And he ’ s come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , is going to come out in a few weeks — The New York Times got hold of an unpublished manuscript — in which he basically says , “ The president told me , 'Hold back military aid until we get these investigations into the Bidens from the Ukrainians . '
” Now , what ’ s so interesting , Amy , is that the Trump legal team ’ s argument has been , “ We have not heard a single fact witness testify that this happened , ” which is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to let John Bolton testify , and then you will have a fact witness who says that this happened .
So the whole Republican strategy has been , “ We can ’ t allow witnesses to come forward and say what happened , ” but at the same time they ’ re saying , Amy , “ There are no witnesses who have come forward and said what happened.
” They want to have their cake and eat it , which is bizarre and dishonest .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the significance of — we ’ re broadcasting here from Utah — of Utah ’ s junior senator , Mitt Romney , saying he ’ s definitely calling for witnesses ?
And then you ’ ve got Susan Collins , who often makes noises but then usually sides with the president .
AMY GOODMAN : Murkowski in Alaska , and particularly Lamar Alexander of Tennessee .
MEHDI HASAN : I think you put your finger on it there , Amy , when you said , “ Susan Collins , who usually kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the president.
” That ’ s a pretty accurate description of every , quote-unquote , “ moderate Republican ” in the era of Trump .
We ’ ve seen this script before , where they make all the right noises , so the media take them seriously .
You saw last week Murkowski and Collins and others coming out and saying , “ Oh , we were hearing out the House managers , and then Adam Schiff said something mean about heads on pikes , and now we might not — now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anymore.
” You know , it ’ s childish behavior .
It ’ s cynical and self-serving behavior .
For me , I would advise everyone at home and all of my journalistic colleagues , in this town and elsewhere , not to fall for the same trick again .
We saw this during the Brett Kavanaugh impeachment hearings , Amy , where people came out and said — you know , Jeff Flake .
Do you remember Jeff Flake , the great moderate Republican senator ?
You know , they came out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an FBI investigation , ” which wasn ’ t really an FBI investigation .
It was just a fig leaf of an investigation , but it enabled people like Flake to say , “ Look , we ’ re open-minded .
We ’ re listening to the evidence .
We ’ re not just being Trump shills.
” And I think that ’ s the case with all of these Republican senators .
Mitt Romney has a long history of talking a good game and then getting behind Trump when he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think they are actually going to vote for witnesses .
I don ’ t think that Mitch McConnell is going to lose this vote .
But you know what ?
I do think that Democrats should come out and call the Republican bluff .
I ’ ve been saying this for a while , Amy .
Come out and say , “ Yes , you want Joe Biden ?
Have Joe Biden .
You want Hunter Biden ?
Have Hunter Biden .
You know , you want the House managers ’ Uber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify , as well .
Have whoever you like , but give us John Bolton .
Give us Mick Mulvaney .
Give us people close to the president who were part of the conversations in which the president did all of this stuff that he claims he didn ’ t do.
” AMY GOODMAN : Mehdi Hasan , we want to thank you for being with us , senior columnist at The Intercept , host of the Deconstructed podcast , also host of UpFront at Al Jazeera English .
This is Democracy Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to cover the Senate impeachment trial .
We stream it every day at democracynow.org .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Coming back , we go to South Dakota .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept, talking about the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told fellow Republican senators in a private meeting he doesn’t yet have the votes to block Democrats from calling impeachment witnesses. Democrats have pushed for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify. On Sunday night, The New York Times published details about a manuscript of Bolton’s forthcoming book, where he claims Trump personally told him he wanted to maintain a freeze on $391 million in military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine turned over materials related to his political rival Joe Biden. On Tuesday, Trump’s defense team wrapped up their opening arguments. Trump’s lawyers, including Jay Sekulow, repeatedly tried to dismiss the reports about Bolton as “allegations.”
JAY SEKULOW: The trial of the leader of the free world and the duly elected president of the United States, it is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That’s politics, unfortunately. And Hamilton put impeachment in the hands of this body, the Senate, precisely and specifically to be above that fray.
AMY GOODMAN: The impeachment trial continues today for a phase where senators will have 16 hours to ask questions to the House impeachment managers and the president’s legal team, though they can’t do it directly.
To talk more about impeachment, we’re still with Mehdi Hasan in Washington, senior columnist at The Intercept and host of the Deconstructed podcast, also host of UpFront at Al Jazeera English.
So, it looks like the vote will come on Friday on whether there will be witnesses. You have President Trump’s former Chief of Staff General John Kelly, not always a fan of John Bolton, essentially calling Trump a liar, saying he believes what John Bolton is saying, that he directly told Bolton that he was withholding the aid to Ukraine to get them to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. Talk about the significance of what’s happened so far.
MEHDI HASAN: Yeah, it’s very significant, in the sense, Amy, that it’s yet another reminder that Donald Trump is a liar, as you mentioned John Kelly calling him a liar. He’s lied this morning on Twitter. He’s just put out a couple of tweets in which there are multiple lies, claiming that, you know, witnesses are only for the House, not the Senate, which is not true, and other multiple false statements. So it’s not only significant in that it’s a reminder that the Trump administration and the GOP in the Senate and the House are lying to us about all of this, but it’s also a reminder about how this trial is not really a trial, because it doesn’t involve any witnesses at the moment.
There have been 15 impeachment trials in the Senate since the beginning of the United States. That’s including judges, not just two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In every single one of those 15 impeachment trials, there have been witnesses. At the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, in which Mitch McConnell was involved, there were three witnesses: Monica Lewinsky, Sidney Blumenthal and Vernon Jordan. The idea that you can have a trial without any witnesses, I think, is absurd. I think even the average American, even a Republican, would accept that that premise is absurd, the idea that you have a trial, but there are no witnesses. The idea that you have a trial in which jurors, because that’s what the Republican senators are, are going on the record saying, “We’re coordinating with the White House; we have no interest in being fair or impartial,” as Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have said, that would not happen in any other trial. So this whole trial has been a farce since day one. You mentioned Jay Sekulow. He’s been lying to us since day one, lying about the entire process. Multiple factually inaccurate statements put forward — and fact-checked in real time — by the Trump legal team.
And now you have this John Bolton revelation, which is hugely ironic, because we’ve always known that John Bolton wanted regime change around the world; I just didn’t realize he wanted regime change in Washington, D.C. And he’s come out with this book, that, you know, is going to come out in a few weeks — The New York Times got hold of an unpublished manuscript — in which he basically says, “The president told me, 'Hold back military aid until we get these investigations into the Bidens from the Ukrainians.'” Now, what’s so interesting, Amy, is that the Trump legal team’s argument has been, “We have not heard a single fact witness testify that this happened,” which is a kind of chicken-and-egg situation, because you need to let John Bolton testify, and then you will have a fact witness who says that this happened. So the whole Republican strategy has been, “We can’t allow witnesses to come forward and say what happened,” but at the same time they’re saying, Amy, “There are no witnesses who have come forward and said what happened.” They want to have their cake and eat it, which is bizarre and dishonest.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the division in the Republican Party, the significance of — we’re broadcasting here from Utah — of Utah’s junior senator, Mitt Romney, saying he’s definitely calling for witnesses? And then you’ve got Susan Collins, who often makes noises but then usually sides with the president.
MEHDI HASAN: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Murkowski in Alaska, and particularly Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
MEHDI HASAN: I think you put your finger on it there, Amy, when you said, “Susan Collins, who usually kind of makes these noises and then sides with the president.” That’s a pretty accurate description of every, quote-unquote, “moderate Republican” in the era of Trump. We’ve seen this script before, where they make all the right noises, so the media take them seriously. You saw last week Murkowski and Collins and others coming out and saying, “Oh, we were hearing out the House managers, and then Adam Schiff said something mean about heads on pikes, and now we might not — now we’re not listening to him anymore.” You know, it’s childish behavior. It’s cynical and self-serving behavior.
For me, I would advise everyone at home and all of my journalistic colleagues, in this town and elsewhere, not to fall for the same trick again. We saw this during the Brett Kavanaugh impeachment hearings, Amy, where people came out and said — you know, Jeff Flake. Do you remember Jeff Flake, the great moderate Republican senator? You know, they came out and said, “Let’s have an FBI investigation,” which wasn’t really an FBI investigation. It was just a fig leaf of an investigation, but it enabled people like Flake to say, “Look, we’re open-minded. We’re listening to the evidence. We’re not just being Trump shills.” And I think that’s the case with all of these Republican senators. Mitt Romney has a long history of talking a good game and then getting behind Trump when he has to. And I just don’t think they are actually going to vote for witnesses. I don’t think that Mitch McConnell is going to lose this vote.
But you know what? I do think that Democrats should come out and call the Republican bluff. I’ve been saying this for a while, Amy. Come out and say, “Yes, you want Joe Biden? Have Joe Biden. You want Hunter Biden? Have Hunter Biden. You know, you want the House managers’ Uber drivers? You can get them to testify, as well. Have whoever you like, but give us John Bolton. Give us Mick Mulvaney. Give us people close to the president who were part of the conversations in which the president did all of this stuff that he claims he didn’t do.”
AMY GOODMAN: Mehdi Hasan, we want to thank you for being with us, senior columnist at The Intercept, host of the Deconstructed podcast, also host of UpFront at Al Jazeera English.
This is Democracy Now! Of course, we’ll continue to cover the Senate impeachment trial. We stream it every day at democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Coming back, we go to South Dakota. Stay with us.