democracynow--2020-06-16--Supreme Court Bars Workplace Discrimination Against LGBTQ People; Ruling May Be Transformative

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman in New York , joined by my co-host Juan González at his home in New Brunswick , New Jersey .
Hi , Juan .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Hi , Amy .
And welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we ’ re going to begin with the Supreme Court ruling Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights law protects gay , bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in the workplace .
The historic 6-to-3 ruling marked a massive victory for the LGBTQ community , as well as everyone , as was penned by one of the court ’ s most conservative justices : Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch .
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in stating that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act , which forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of sex , applies to gay and transgender people .
At least half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fire workers for being LGBTQ .
One of the key cases the court considered was that of Aimee Stephens , a transgender woman who was fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home in 2013 .
Stephens did not live to see her victory in the Supreme Court .
She died last month at the age of 59 .
The Supreme Court also reviewed the case of Donald Zarda , a skydiving instructor who said he was fired for being gay .
He died in an accident in 2014 .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antollino .
AMY GOODMAN : The victory comes amidst a nationwide uprising against police brutality and racism that ’ s often shone a light on violence against Black trans women .
In Brooklyn Sunday , at least 15,000 people marched through the streets in defense of Black trans lives after two more Black trans women were killed last week .
It also comes just days after the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act .
Well , for more , we ’ re going to Boston , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU ’ s LGBT & HIV Project .
He was one of the attorneys for Aimee Stephens in the landmark Supreme Court civil rights case to protect LGBTQ workers .
Chase , welcome back to Democracy Now !
Can you talk about the significance of the victory , and the fact that the person who wrote the majority opinion was the Trump appointee , Neil Gorsuch ?
CHASE STRANGIO : Thanks , Amy .
And thanks for having me back and actually being able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , this truly is a historic ruling .
And it absolutely — the court was unequivocal that federal prohibitions on sex discrimination include prohibitions on discrimination against LGBTQ people .
So this means you can not be fired across the country for being LGBTQ or otherwise face employment discrimination .
But I think what is also so important is that courts use Title VII cases to interpret all of the other federal civil rights laws that prohibit sex discrimination , so this is going to have a transformative effect on federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing , education and healthcare , as well as credit .
So this truly is a historic win .
And in terms of the breakdown , absolutely , we briefed this case for Neil Gorsuch .
He was our — he was our swing vote .
He is a textualist .
His jurisprudence is premised on the idea that you look to the words of the statute , not to the intentions of Congress at the time a statute was enacted .
And we hoped that he would stick to his principles instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he did that .
And the chief joined .
And I am shocked , but it was the right and righteous decision .
And we were right on the law , and so were they .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Chase , in terms of the implications of this decision , just last week , the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act .
And they announced this , ironically , on the fourth anniversary of the Pulse massacre that claimed 49 lives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nightclub .
Your sense of how this — would this decision have an impact even on this latest move of the Trump administration ?
CHASE STRANGIO : Absolutely , it will have a huge impact .
So , one of the things to point out is that the Trump administration issued a comprehensive anti-trans regulation at 4 p.m. Eastern time on a Friday , knowing that the Supreme Court was going to issue opinions 10 a.m. on Monday morning and could likely undo the very regulations that they were putting forth .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruelty towards LGBTQ people , and people who need access to abortion , I might add , as well .
But ultimately , a federal agency can not contradict the statute that it is implementing .
And the ACA has a prohibition on sex discrimination , and that is the source of the protection .
So the Trump administration is not the final word on the meaning of sex discrimination under federal law ; the Supreme Court is .
And they just made just absolutely clear that prohibitions on sex discrimination include LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is dead on arrival .
You know , obviously , people are going to continue to face discrimination .
We know that even when legal protections are in place , particularly our Black and Indigenous and Brown trans sisters , our fem sisters , are facing relentless discrimination , and so we have to keep fighting .
The laws is not the only source of protection , absolutely , but this is going to have a cascading effect .
And all of the administrative actions that this administration has taken , since day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Title IX student guidance , those actions are completely undermined by yesterday ’ s Supreme Court ruling .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to bring Imara Jones into the conversation , journalist , founder and creator of TransLash and a Soros Equality fellow .
If you could comment on the significance of Friday ’ s Trump order that would take away protections for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act , and then what happened yesterday , Imara ?
IMARA JONES : Yes .
Thank you , Amy .
And it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Those regulations that allowed for equal access to trans people are pivotal in two primary ways .
The first way is that for trans people who either need or choose to have medical interventions to aid with transition , either hormones or surgeries , we know that those medical interventions are lifesaving .
They have a dramatic impact not only on people ’ s ability to , quite frankly , stay alive , but also to have an amount of well-being that allows them to be full citizens , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The second way , of course , is that we know that many trans people are afraid to go into healthcare facilities , and that fear is driven by the fact of people ’ s past experience with discrimination .
I even have had that happen before .
And to codify that in the law — even with the existing regulation , as Chase pointed out , people still face discrimination .
So that was the case .
But to codify that and to expand that means that , again , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare that ’ s not related to transition , that trans people would either not be able to access it because of the decision of those healthcare providers or not go in because of that fear that ’ s based on past discrimination .
And all of that ’ s happening against the backdrop of COVID-19 , and so it was particularly cruel in so many ways .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Yeah , I wanted to ask Chase if you could talk about — you were one of the attorneys for Aimee Stephens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , in this historic case .
Could you tell us a little bit about her story , and also the unfortunate fact that she passed before the final court ruling ?
CHASE STRANGIO : Yes , and that part of the story is absolutely heartbreaking .
Aimee , like many trans people , like me , struggled internally for many years , and ultimately , somewhat later in life , came out as transgender to her family , and really had hope that her employer would accept her as who she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beautiful letter to her colleagues and her boss at the Michigan funeral home where she had worked for many years and was a model employee .
And she wrote this letter , and she was immediately fired , just because she is transgender .
And that was in 2013 .
So she spent the last seven years of her life fighting this case , fighting for justice , even when many people told her that she had no claim .
Ultimately , it was the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Obama administration was enforcing federal civil rights laws to protect trans and LGB individuals .
After the election , we intervened on Aimee ’ s behalf to ensure that someone in the case was defending her rights , knowing that the United States would likely shift positions , which they ultimately did .
At the United States Supreme Court , it was the employers and the United States against the workers .
And so , you know , this was an incredible victory for workers , in general .
This was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights laws .
And the reality is that Aimee lost her job .
She lost her financial security .
She lost her health insurance , because we live in a country that ties access to health insurance to employment , which is tragic in and of itself .
And her health began to decline as a result of that .
So she spent the last seven years of her life not only fighting for the basic dignity of the recognition that what happened to her was wrong , but while she was precariously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , which led directly to her premature death just weeks before the Supreme Court ruled in her favor in this case .
And I think that is a reminder that discrimination leads to death .
And that is especially true for Black people who face higher rates of discrimination in employment , higher rates of discrimination in housing and shelter access , and , as we know , higher rates of deadly violence from the police .
And so , we have to connect the fact that two of the three individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , and that is directly tied to discrimination .
And we have a responsibility to not only ensure the enforcement of this action , but go much farther , to ensure justice for our full community .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , let ’ s go back for a moment to hear Aimee Stephens in her own words .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Aimee Stephens speaking at an ACLU news conference before she died last year in September .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York, joined by my co-host Juan González at his home in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Hi, Juan.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hi, Amy. And welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to begin with the Supreme Court ruling Monday, that landmark ruling that a civil rights law protects gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in the workplace. The historic 6-to-3 ruling marked a massive victory for the LGBTQ community, as well as everyone, as was penned by one of the court’s most conservative justices: Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion in stating that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, applies to gay and transgender people. At least half of the 50 states previously allowed employers to fire workers for being LGBTQ.
One of the key cases the court considered was that of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home in 2013. Stephens did not live to see her victory in the Supreme Court. She died last month at the age of 59. The Supreme Court also reviewed the case of Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who said he was fired for being gay. He died in an accident in 2014. This is Zarda’s lawyer, Gregory Antollino.
GREGORY ANTOLLINO: It’ll be a catalyst toward changing history. You know, it’s a new decision. It’s going to take the states that don’t protect LGBT rights time to adjust to, but it is certainly a catalyst, an historical one. And that sounds bigger than I can imagine at this time.
AMY GOODMAN: The victory comes amidst a nationwide uprising against police brutality and racism that’s often shone a light on violence against Black trans women. In Brooklyn Sunday, at least 15,000 people marched through the streets in defense of Black trans lives after two more Black trans women were killed last week. It also comes just days after the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act.
Well, for more, we’re going to Boston, Massachusetts, to speak with Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. He was one of the attorneys for Aimee Stephens in the landmark Supreme Court civil rights case to protect LGBTQ workers.
Chase, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the significance of the victory, and the fact that the person who wrote the majority opinion was the Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch?
CHASE STRANGIO: Thanks, Amy. And thanks for having me back and actually being able to talk about something positive for once.
You know, this truly is a historic ruling. And it absolutely — the court was unequivocal that federal prohibitions on sex discrimination include prohibitions on discrimination against LGBTQ people. So this means you cannot be fired across the country for being LGBTQ or otherwise face employment discrimination.
But I think what is also so important is that courts use Title VII cases to interpret all of the other federal civil rights laws that prohibit sex discrimination, so this is going to have a transformative effect on federal civil rights laws in the context of housing, education and healthcare, as well as credit. So this truly is a historic win.
And in terms of the breakdown, absolutely, we briefed this case for Neil Gorsuch. He was our — he was our swing vote. He is a textualist. His jurisprudence is premised on the idea that you look to the words of the statute, not to the intentions of Congress at the time a statute was enacted. And we hoped that he would stick to his principles instead of reverse-engineer an outcome based on politics. And he did that. And the chief joined. And I am shocked, but it was the right and righteous decision. And we were right on the law, and so were they.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Chase, in terms of the implications of this decision, just last week, the Trump administration reversed health protections for transgender people under the Affordable Care Act. And they announced this, ironically, on the fourth anniversary of the Pulse massacre that claimed 49 lives in Orlando, Florida, at a gay nightclub. Your sense of how this — would this decision have an impact even on this latest move of the Trump administration?
CHASE STRANGIO: Absolutely, it will have a huge impact. So, one of the things to point out is that the Trump administration issued a comprehensive anti-trans regulation at 4 p.m. Eastern time on a Friday, knowing that the Supreme Court was going to issue opinions 10 a.m. on Monday morning and could likely undo the very regulations that they were putting forth. So it was an act of just absolute cruelty towards LGBTQ people, and people who need access to abortion, I might add, as well.
But ultimately, a federal agency cannot contradict the statute that it is implementing. And the ACA has a prohibition on sex discrimination, and that is the source of the protection. So the Trump administration is not the final word on the meaning of sex discrimination under federal law; the Supreme Court is. And they just made just absolutely clear that prohibitions on sex discrimination include LGBTQ people. So I think that rule is dead on arrival.
You know, obviously, people are going to continue to face discrimination. We know that even when legal protections are in place, particularly our Black and Indigenous and Brown trans sisters, our fem sisters, are facing relentless discrimination, and so we have to keep fighting. The laws is not the only source of protection, absolutely, but this is going to have a cascading effect. And all of the administrative actions that this administration has taken, since day one, in 2017, from rescinding Title IX student guidance, those actions are completely undermined by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Imara Jones into the conversation, journalist, founder and creator of TransLash and a Soros Equality fellow. If you could comment on the significance of Friday’s Trump order that would take away protections for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act, and then what happened yesterday, Imara?
IMARA JONES: Yes. Thank you, Amy. And it’s great to be back on, as well.
Those regulations that allowed for equal access to trans people are pivotal in two primary ways. The first way is that for trans people who either need or choose to have medical interventions to aid with transition, either hormones or surgeries, we know that those medical interventions are lifesaving. They have a dramatic impact not only on people’s ability to, quite frankly, stay alive, but also to have an amount of well-being that allows them to be full citizens, and so it’s pivotal in that way.
The second way, of course, is that we know that many trans people are afraid to go into healthcare facilities, and that fear is driven by the fact of people’s past experience with discrimination. I even have had that happen before. And to codify that in the law — even with the existing regulation, as Chase pointed out, people still face discrimination. So that was the case. But to codify that and to expand that means that, again, that with regards to regular healthcare or lifesaving healthcare that’s not related to transition, that trans people would either not be able to access it because of the decision of those healthcare providers or not go in because of that fear that’s based on past discrimination. And all of that’s happening against the backdrop of COVID-19, and so it was particularly cruel in so many ways.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I wanted to ask Chase if you could talk about — you were one of the attorneys for Aimee Stephens, one of the lead plaintiffs in this case, in this historic case. Could you tell us a little bit about her story, and also the unfortunate fact that she passed before the final court ruling?
CHASE STRANGIO: Yes, and that part of the story is absolutely heartbreaking. Aimee, like many trans people, like me, struggled internally for many years, and ultimately, somewhat later in life, came out as transgender to her family, and really had hope that her employer would accept her as who she is. And she wrote this incredibly beautiful letter to her colleagues and her boss at the Michigan funeral home where she had worked for many years and was a model employee. And she wrote this letter, and she was immediately fired, just because she is transgender. And that was in 2013. So she spent the last seven years of her life fighting this case, fighting for justice, even when many people told her that she had no claim.
Ultimately, it was the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that brought the case against her employer, when the Obama administration was enforcing federal civil rights laws to protect trans and LGB individuals. After the election, we intervened on Aimee’s behalf to ensure that someone in the case was defending her rights, knowing that the United States would likely shift positions, which they ultimately did. At the United States Supreme Court, it was the employers and the United States against the workers. And so, you know, this was an incredible victory for workers, in general. This was an incredible victory for expansive interpretations of civil rights laws.
And the reality is that Aimee lost her job. She lost her financial security. She lost her health insurance, because we live in a country that ties access to health insurance to employment, which is tragic in and of itself. And her health began to decline as a result of that. So she spent the last seven years of her life not only fighting for the basic dignity of the recognition that what happened to her was wrong, but while she was precariously situated because she did not have financial security, which led directly to her premature death just weeks before the Supreme Court ruled in her favor in this case.
And I think that is a reminder that discrimination leads to death. And that is especially true for Black people who face higher rates of discrimination in employment, higher rates of discrimination in housing and shelter access, and, as we know, higher rates of deadly violence from the police. And so, we have to connect the fact that two of the three individual workers have died before the outcome of this case, and that is directly tied to discrimination. And we have a responsibility to not only ensure the enforcement of this action, but go much farther, to ensure justice for our full community.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, let’s go back for a moment to hear Aimee Stephens in her own words.
AIMEE STEPHENS: I’ve been living basically two lives: one at home and in public, and one at work. And in the beginning, that wasn’t so bad. But as time goes on and as time progressed, I got to the point that living two lives, being two people, was becoming downright impossible. And I knew that I couldn’t keep going that way. And things came to a head in November of 2012, when I stood in the backyard with a gun to my chest, pondering the question: If I can’t go forward and I can’t go backwards, where does that leave me? And if this is all I have to look forward to, then what’s the point of continuing? And in that hour, going over that and over that in my mind, I chose life, and I realized that I liked me too much to just disappear and go away.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Aimee Stephens speaking at an ACLU news conference before she died last year in September.


democracynow--2020-06-16--Headlines for June 16, 2020

Headlines for June 16, 2020

As coronavirus cases in the United States top 2,100,000 , with over 116,000 reported deaths , the Food and Drug Administration has pulled its emergency-use authorization for antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine , saying , “ It is no longer reasonable to believe [ they ] may be effective in treating Covid-19.
” The drugs have been repeatedly touted by President Trump , even as multiple studies showed they were not only ineffective for COVID-19 , but potentially could result in heart attack or even death .
When asked about this latest news , Trump continued to defend the drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People that were like seriously ill , like they weren ’ t going to make it , let ’ s give them a little hydroxy , and then they don ’ t make it , and they say , 'Oh , wow , maybe the president was wrong . '
All I know is that we ’ ve had some tremendous reports.
” President Trump also blamed increased testing for the country ’ s high number of coronavirus cases .
“ If you don ’ t test , you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vice President Mike Pence echoed this idea on a call with governors Monday , encouraging them to adopt the same message that more testing is leading to rising numbers , rather than community spread due to relaxed restrictions .
But the data suggests recent spikes in cases are much greater than what would be reflected simply by a higher number of tests being administered .
Cases continue to surge in Arizona , where over 4,400 new cases were reported over the weekend .
Arizona ’ s outbreak started surging in early June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
Arizona ’ s infection rate per capita is now more than three times higher than New York state .
Florida , which is also seeing a spike in cases , reported Friday 3,400 children have tested positive for the coronavirus , 10 of whom have a serious inflammatory condition which has been described by health officials as similar to Kawasaki disease , or toxic shock syndrome .

As coronavirus cases in the United States top 2,100,000, with over 116,000 reported deaths, the Food and Drug Administration has pulled its emergency-use authorization for antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, saying, “It is no longer reasonable to believe [they] may be effective in treating Covid-19.” The drugs have been repeatedly touted by President Trump, even as multiple studies showed they were not only ineffective for COVID-19, but potentially could result in heart attack or even death. When asked about this latest news, Trump continued to defend the drugs Monday.
President Donald Trump: “People that were like seriously ill, like they weren’t going to make it, let’s give them a little hydroxy, and then they don’t make it, and they say, 'Oh, wow, maybe the president was wrong.' All I know is that we’ve had some tremendous reports.”
President Trump also blamed increased testing for the country’s high number of coronavirus cases. “If you don’t test, you don’t have any cases,” he told reporters. Vice President Mike Pence echoed this idea on a call with governors Monday, encouraging them to adopt the same message that more testing is leading to rising numbers, rather than community spread due to relaxed restrictions. But the data suggests recent spikes in cases are much greater than what would be reflected simply by a higher number of tests being administered.
Cases continue to surge in Arizona, where over 4,400 new cases were reported over the weekend. Arizona’s outbreak started surging in early June — two weeks after lifting its stay-at-home order. Arizona’s infection rate per capita is now more than three times higher than New York state. Florida, which is also seeing a spike in cases, reported Friday 3,400 children have tested positive for the coronavirus, 10 of whom have a serious inflammatory condition which has been described by health officials as similar to Kawasaki disease, or toxic shock syndrome.


democracynow--2020-06-17--Meet Jamaal Bowman, the Bronx Principal Challenging One of the Most Powerful Dems in Congress

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 , as we turn to the second most economically unequal district in New York state .
That ’ s the Bronx , where an insurgent campaign for Congress is threatening to upset the Democratic establishment as protests against police and systemic racism continue to roil the country .
Not far from where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took down longtime Congressmember Joe Crowley in 2018 , former middle school principal Jamaal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressmember , House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel and represent New York ’ s 16th Congressional District in the Bronx and Westchester County .
Bowman is running on a Green New Deal , Medicare for All platform and has responded to the recent spate of protests across the country by saying he supports defunding the police .
Congressman Engel , meanwhile , has called for police reform .
The congressman has also faced criticism for his support of the 1994 crime bill , for spending much of his time in his home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Earlier this month , Engel was caught on a News 12 mic asking Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. if he could speak at a rally after a night of protests against police violence .
He then told Díaz that , quote , “ If I didn ’ t have a primary , I wouldn ’ t care , ” unquote .
The race has gained national attention as New York ’ s primary election approaches next Tuesday , on June 23rd , with Democratic heavyweights Hillary Clinton , House Speaker Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throwing their support behind Engel .
Meanwhile , Jamaal Bowman is backed by Senators Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , The New York Times , Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party .
Well , he is joining us now from Yonkers , New York , just finished up with a campaign event there .
Jamaal Bowman , thank you for joining us on Democracy Now !
Can you talk about why you think your campaign can succeed — you ’ ve gotten a number of extremely important endorsements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important message out of these anti-police-brutality protests around the country , that are also focused very much right here in New York ?
JAMAAL BOWMAN : Well , thank you so much for having me .
Good morning .
I have worked in this district for the last 10 years as a middle school principal .
I actually opened my own community public school right here in the Northeast Bronx .
And over that 10 years , I ’ ve developed thousands of amazing relationships with the children and families of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimately the impact of poverty and bad policy on their lives each and every day .
And what I also learned was that Congressman Eliot Engel has been incredibly absent and disengaged in most of the district .
He does a good job of engaging about 9 % of the district , while the rest of the district feels unheard and unsupported in terms of what they ’ re going through .
With regard to the protests happening across the country , I ’ m inspired by it .
I ’ m excited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history , it has been protests and mass movements and the people rising up that has moved to this country forward .
That ’ s what ’ s happening now .
Unfortunately , it had to happen at the hands of George Floyd ’ s death and Ahmaud Arbery ’ s death and so many others .
But it ’ s good to see the people rising up , and it ’ s good that so many have galvanized behind our campaign .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jamaal Bowman , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teacher and a principal in the Bronx and what made you decide to throw in your hat in this race , which is , again , against one of the Democratic moderate senior officials of the Democratic Party in Congress ?
JAMAAL BOWMAN : Yeah .
So , I started teaching in 1999 in the South Bronx .
I ’ ve spent 17 of my 20 years in education in the Bronx , both as a teacher and a middle school principal .
And as we all know , our schools are chronically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been historically neglected through policies like redlining and disinvestment .
And we continue to support Wall Street and the wealthy among us .
We continue to allow large corporations like Amazon to get away without paying federal taxes .
And we continue to support out-of-control spending in our military-industrial complex .
All the while , the kids that I serve struggle with mental health supports — a lack of mental health supports , struggle with housing insecurity , food insecurity , lack of job opportunities , environmental racism .
You name it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it .
And I got tired of seeing or not hearing the most vulnerable in our community centered in our political discourse , and our children not at the top of the political agenda .
It just became unacceptable to me .
And I ’ ve done a lot of organizing work for education reform , education justice , around trauma-informed schools , fully funding our schools , pushing back against the overuse of standardized testing .
And I just felt no sense of urgency around what ’ s happening with our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became unacceptable .
AMY GOODMAN : If you could talk about , Jamaal Bowman , your demand to defund the police , joining that growing cry throughout the country , that demand ?
What does it mean to you ?
What does it mean in New York ?
And also , your response to the police commissioner just holding a news conference and saying he ’ s disbanding the entire 600-person anti-crime unit , that is so often known for being undercover , responsible , I believe , for most of the shootings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JAMAAL BOWMAN : Yeah , I think it ’ s an excellent first step .
And it ’ s a direct response , as I said before , to the protests and the uprisings happening here in the city and across the country .
We need to defund the police because we need to demilitarize our police .
We need to stop sending federal military equipment to local police departments .
And we need to focus on accountability and transparency .
We need to end qualified immunity at the federal level , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights with impunity , which we ’ ve seen happening time and time again .
And we need to reallocate and reinvest those resources in community health and community development , so fully investing in our public schools by hiring more teachers , hiring more nurses in healthcare , investing in job programs and everything that creates the infrastructure for collective and self-actualization and determination in our communities .
Unfortunately , we continue to disinvest in our communities and add more police to communities , so that they feel occupied .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been going on far too long .
It ’ s a manifestation of institutional racism through police brutality .
And that ’ s why we call for truth and reconciliation , massive financial investment and massive focus on mental health , social workers and public health overall .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jamaal Bowman , I wanted to ask you about the forces arrayed against you on the side of Eliot Engel , from , of course , Hillary Clinton , making one of her first endorsements on a congressional race of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as a major political action committee that receives Republican — a lot of Republican money , and a major lobbying group , a pro-Israel lobbying group , all behind Engel , on top of the Bronx Democratic — the infamous Bronx Democratic machine .
JAMAAL BOWMAN : I mean , that ’ s fine .
I mean , that is what it is .
That ’ s not what we can control .
I think what it shows the public and the country is that we ’ ve been running an incredibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an amazing team .
We have an amazing campaign manager , comms director .
I mean , we ’ ve been running a strong campaign .
And we ’ re just focused on doing our job and connecting as much with the voters throughout the district as possible .
You know , we ’ ve canvassed the entire district from the very beginning , building strong , authentic relationships , from Scarsdale to Rye to Co-op City to Edenwald to Yonkers and everywhere in between .
And , you know , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home this victory .
I don ’ t know if you saw the recent polling that came out .
It has us 10 points ahead .
So we ’ re doing very well , and we have our own supports , from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez , Congresswoman Katie Porter , Senator Sanders , Senator Elizabeth Warren and The New York Times , as well as local elected officials , like Senator Gustavo Rivera , state Senator Alessandra Biaggi and New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer , as well as many other grassroots organizations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I want to thank you for being with us .
In 10 seconds , can you tell us : How is to campaign on the ground in this area , which has been known as the epicenter of the pandemic , what it means for you ?
We ’ re talking to you in Yonkers now , where you just did an event .
JAMAAL BOWMAN : Absolutely .
So , it means being safe , so maintaining social distancing , making sure we ’ re wearing masks , but to still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be listening to the needs of the people on the ground .
AMY GOODMAN : Jamaal Bowman , thanks so much for being with us , former middle school principal , running to represent New York ’ s 16th District , challenging 16-term congressmember , House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel .
And that does it for our show .
Democracy Now !
is produced by an amazing team on the ground .
Special thanks to Julie Crosby , produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
Stay safe .

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, as we turn to the second most economically unequal district in New York state. That’s the Bronx, where an insurgent campaign for Congress is threatening to upset the Democratic establishment as protests against police and systemic racism continue to roil the country.
Not far from where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took down longtime Congressmember Joe Crowley in 2018, former middle school principal Jamaal Bowman is now running to unseat 16-term congressmember, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel and represent New York’s 16th Congressional District in the Bronx and Westchester County. Bowman is running on a Green New Deal, Medicare for All platform and has responded to the recent spate of protests across the country by saying he supports defunding the police.
Congressman Engel, meanwhile, has called for police reform. The congressman has also faced criticism for his support of the 1994 crime bill, for spending much of his time in his home in Maryland rather than in his district. Earlier this month, Engel was caught on a News 12 mic asking Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. if he could speak at a rally after a night of protests against police violence. He then told Díaz that, quote, “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care,” unquote.
The race has gained national attention as New York’s primary election approaches next Tuesday, on June 23rd, with Democratic heavyweights Hillary Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Whip James Clyburn throwing their support behind Engel. Meanwhile, Jamaal Bowman is backed by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, The New York Times, Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party.
Well, he is joining us now from Yonkers, New York, just finished up with a campaign event there.
Jamaal Bowman, thank you for joining us on Democracy Now! Can you talk about why you think your campaign can succeed — you’ve gotten a number of extremely important endorsements — and what you feel is the most important message out of these anti-police-brutality protests around the country, that are also focused very much right here in New York?
JAMAAL BOWMAN: Well, thank you so much for having me. Good morning.
I have worked in this district for the last 10 years as a middle school principal. I actually opened my own community public school right here in the Northeast Bronx. And over that 10 years, I’ve developed thousands of amazing relationships with the children and families of this community, and I’ve learned intimately the impact of poverty and bad policy on their lives each and every day.
And what I also learned was that Congressman Eliot Engel has been incredibly absent and disengaged in most of the district. He does a good job of engaging about 9% of the district, while the rest of the district feels unheard and unsupported in terms of what they’re going through.
With regard to the protests happening across the country, I’m inspired by it. I’m excited by it. If you look throughout American history, it has been protests and mass movements and the people rising up that has moved to this country forward. That’s what’s happening now. Unfortunately, it had to happen at the hands of George Floyd’s death and Ahmaud Arbery’s death and so many others. But it’s good to see the people rising up, and it’s good that so many have galvanized behind our campaign.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jamaal Bowman, could you talk about your experience as a teacher and a principal in the Bronx and what made you decide to throw in your hat in this race, which is, again, against one of the Democratic moderate senior officials of the Democratic Party in Congress?
JAMAAL BOWMAN: Yeah. So, I started teaching in 1999 in the South Bronx. I’ve spent 17 of my 20 years in education in the Bronx, both as a teacher and a middle school principal. And as we all know, our schools are chronically underfunded and underresourced, but our communities have been historically neglected through policies like redlining and disinvestment. And we continue to support Wall Street and the wealthy among us. We continue to allow large corporations like Amazon to get away without paying federal taxes. And we continue to support out-of-control spending in our military-industrial complex.
All the while, the kids that I serve struggle with mental health supports — a lack of mental health supports, struggle with housing insecurity, food insecurity, lack of job opportunities, environmental racism. You name it, my kids and families have struggled with it. And I got tired of seeing or not hearing the most vulnerable in our community centered in our political discourse, and our children not at the top of the political agenda. It just became unacceptable to me. And I’ve done a lot of organizing work for education reform, education justice, around trauma-informed schools, fully funding our schools, pushing back against the overuse of standardized testing. And I just felt no sense of urgency around what’s happening with our kids every day, and it just became unacceptable.
AMY GOODMAN: If you could talk about, Jamaal Bowman, your demand to defund the police, joining that growing cry throughout the country, that demand? What does it mean to you? What does it mean in New York? And also, your response to the police commissioner just holding a news conference and saying he’s disbanding the entire 600-person anti-crime unit, that is so often known for being undercover, responsible, I believe, for most of the shootings in New York, police shootings?
JAMAAL BOWMAN: Yeah, I think it’s an excellent first step. And it’s a direct response, as I said before, to the protests and the uprisings happening here in the city and across the country.
We need to defund the police because we need to demilitarize our police. We need to stop sending federal military equipment to local police departments. And we need to focus on accountability and transparency. We need to end qualified immunity at the federal level, where police can violate a person’s civil rights with impunity, which we’ve seen happening time and time again. And we need to reallocate and reinvest those resources in community health and community development, so fully investing in our public schools by hiring more teachers, hiring more nurses in healthcare, investing in job programs and everything that creates the infrastructure for collective and self-actualization and determination in our communities.
Unfortunately, we continue to disinvest in our communities and add more police to communities, so that they feel occupied. That’s unacceptable. It’s been going on far too long. It’s a manifestation of institutional racism through police brutality. And that’s why we call for truth and reconciliation, massive financial investment and massive focus on mental health, social workers and public health overall.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jamaal Bowman, I wanted to ask you about the forces arrayed against you on the side of Eliot Engel, from, of course, Hillary Clinton, making one of her first endorsements on a congressional race of this year for Eliot Engel, as well as a major political action committee that receives Republican — a lot of Republican money, and a major lobbying group, a pro-Israel lobbying group, all behind Engel, on top of the Bronx Democratic — the infamous Bronx Democratic machine.
JAMAAL BOWMAN: I mean, that’s fine. I mean, that is what it is. That’s not what we can control. I think what it shows the public and the country is that we’ve been running an incredibly strong campaign. You know, we have an amazing team. We have an amazing campaign manager, comms director. I mean, we’ve been running a strong campaign. And we’re just focused on doing our job and connecting as much with the voters throughout the district as possible. You know, we’ve canvassed the entire district from the very beginning, building strong, authentic relationships, from Scarsdale to Rye to Co-op City to Edenwald to Yonkers and everywhere in between.
And, you know, we’re six days away from bringing home this victory. I don’t know if you saw the recent polling that came out. It has us 10 points ahead. So we’re doing very well, and we have our own supports, from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, Congresswoman Katie Porter, Senator Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and The New York Times, as well as local elected officials, like Senator Gustavo Rivera, state Senator Alessandra Biaggi and New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, as well as many other grassroots organizations.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jamaal Bowman, I want to thank you for being with us. In 10 seconds, can you tell us: How is to campaign on the ground in this area, which has been known as the epicenter of the pandemic, what it means for you? We’re talking to you in Yonkers now, where you just did an event.
JAMAAL BOWMAN: Absolutely. So, it means being safe, so maintaining social distancing, making sure we’re wearing masks, but to still be present and engaged and to still be listening to the needs of the people on the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: Jamaal Bowman, thanks so much for being with us, former middle school principal, running to represent New York’s 16th District, challenging 16-term congressmember, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel.
And that does it for our show. Democracy Now! is produced by an amazing team on the ground. Special thanks to Julie Crosby, produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, Carla Wills. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Stay safe.


democracynow--2020-06-17--No Oversight of $1.5 Billion Electric Project Raises Alarm over Privatization of Puerto Rico's Power

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
As hurricane season begins , we turn to Puerto Rico , which was devastated in 2017 when Hurricane Maria killed at least 3,000 people , destroyed much of the island ’ s power grid , leaving many without electricity for months .
A new investigation reveals the Puerto Rican government issued a $ 1.5 billion contract to a company for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the storm without the proper oversight .
The report accuses Puerto Rico ’ s Electric Power Authority of giving an unfair advantage to New Fortress Energy when it contracted with the company to convert two major power stations from operating on diesel to natural gas .
The report also accused the island ’ s power company of failing to consider the project ’ s environment , safety and health impacts , and alternative sources of power like renewable energy .
The report comes amidst ongoing moves to privatize Puerto Rico ’ s electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vila Biaggi , who joins us now from San Juan , Puerto Rico .
She is president of CAMBIO , a Puerto Rico-based environmental nonprofit , former chief of staff for the commonwealth of Puerto Rico .
She co-authored the new report with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis .
Ingrid , welcome to Democracy Now !
Just lay out what you found and the level of , really , vision corruption in this .
INGRID VILA BIAGGI : Yes .
First of all , thank you for having me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an ill-conceived project full of fiscally irresponsible practices , full of irregularities , that start from the absence of a desirability and convenience study , that did not even was put forth in order to determine this was a project that was beneficial to Puerto Rico .
This is the conversion to natural gas of two units for the San Juan 5 and 6 generation facility for the power authority , PREPA , in Puerto Rico .
This is a project that was started as an unsolicited proposal by New Fortress Energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scarcely two months after Hurricane Maria , when Puerto Ricans did not have power .
We didn ’ t even have adequate communication .
And we already had this company presenting to the power authority this unsolicited proposal , which provided them with access and continued communication to the authority and a confidentiality agreement , which granted them information about these two units .
Then the authority moves into an RFP process without providing information to bidders of this ongoing communication with this company or the confidentiality agreement that it had set forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was vital in terms of the properties that it had strategically acquired .
So , we ’ re calling for the cancellation of this project , which , as you mentioned , is a $ 1.5 billion project , that would continue to lock in fossil fuels on the island and would prevent the aggressive integration of renewable energy , which would be the sustainable transformation that Puerto Rico deserves right now .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Ingrid Vila Biaggi , how did New Fortress Energy get this sort of cozy relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power authority ?
It ’ s a company , as I understand it , that was formed by former executives of BlackRock , of Goldman Sachs and of UBS .
What ’ s been its track record ?
Does it have a track record in this kind of liquid gas production for electricity anywhere else in the world ?
INGRID VILA BIAGGI : It has — first of all , it doesn ’ t have a track record in Puerto Rico .
And it has a very limited time experience in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the questions that we raised : How was this company selected versus other companies ?
And like I mentioned , this was presented as an unsolicited proposal to the authority .
So , the project , as itself , was conceived by the private sector , which has been one of the great problems that PREPA has faced in the past in terms of lacking planning and then allowing for then private interests to push in these projects that do not serve the best interests of the people of Puerto Rico .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we were able to obtain through litigation with PREPA .
PREPA was not willing to provide us these documents , and we had to go to court to get them .
So , what we found through that public documentation is all these irregularities in the process , prior to the RFP process and during the RFP process .
We were able to identify , though , some law firms , for example , that were contracted by PREPA to negotiate this contract after it was awarded to New Fortress .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the parent company of New Fortress .
We were not able to find a specific documentation regarding how they — who introduced them to Puerto Rico .
And that ’ s , I think , part of the investigation that should be conducted by federal and local authorities , to find out and provide questions to many issues that we raise in the report .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Ingrid , I ’ d like to ask you also about a separate report that came out that Chris Christie , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the original transition team for President Trump , is now a lobbyist , at $ 30,000 a month , for the Puerto Rico electric company .
What exactly is Chris Christie doing there ?
And what ’ s his expertise ?
INGRID VILA BIAGGI : Yes , there is no information in terms of what he ’ s doing .
PREPA announced last week , or it was disclosed , that this contract was set forth for the upcoming month , supposedly to help with federal funding and to get federal funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , this is another of those contracts that has no accountability and sums to the — and comes to add to over $ 270 million in contracts that have been awarded at PREPA for professional services and financial advisory in the past two , three years .
We have to remember , $ 270 million perhaps doesn ’ t sound like a big amount of money in the U.S. , but this is a bankrupt corporation .
Two hundred and seventy million dollars in public services , public professional services , amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be used for the maintenance of the infrastructure , for adopting renewables , for rooftop solar projects .
So , we definitely question this professional service contract , as well as the other ones that have been awarded in the authority .
AMY GOODMAN : So , finally , as you are in hurricane season , Ingrid — began on June 1st — and you have this sun-soaked island , to have poured this much money , let alone the reason that they have given it to this company — José Ortiz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said that your report “ showed complete ignorance ” around the contract , that it was approved by the federal control board that oversees Puerto Rico ’ s finances .
If you could respond and say what you ’ re demanding right now ?
INGRID VILA BIAGGI : Well , I mean , José Ortiz ’ s reaction does not address any of the irregularities that we ’ ve raised in the report , and he tries to dismiss our report by questioning the professional experience of the authors — in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re both former public officials with vast experience in contract supervision .
And like I mentioned , he ’ s just trying to distract the attention from the report .
And in terms of your statement regarding the beginning of hurricane season , definitely , it is quite — it creates quite a bit of anxiety to know that the forecast for this hurricane season is going to be quite an active one and that Puerto Rico is not better poised to address an extreme weather event than it was when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PREPA has not implemented and has not addressed renewable energy and other more sustainable alternatives to make the grid more resilient and reduce vulnerabilities for the population of Puerto Rico .
Regarding approvals during the process , those are some of the things that we question in the report .
I mean , the fiscal control board approved this , yet acknowledging in their own write-up that the project was 30 to 40 % above industry benchmark costs .
So , I mean , we do want — that ’ s why we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside investigation of this whole process , to see how a project with and a contractor with so many issues and a process with so many irregularities was able to conclude and a contract was able to be signed , and now we have this project that we have to deal with on the island .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Ingrid Vila Biaggi , we thank you so much for being with us , president of CAMBIO , speaking to us from San Juan , Puerto Rico .
And before we go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 30 seconds , Juan , if you could talk about the Supreme Court decision that just came down around Puerto Rico ’ s debt ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Yes , Amy .
Well , a couple of weeks ago , the Supreme Court ruled , but it was in the midst of all of the protests , the national protests around police abuse , so it didn ’ t get much attention in the U.S .
It basically ruled that the appointment of the PROMESA board , which basically is running Puerto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really supersedes the local government , that the appointment of those officials by Congress and the president was legal .
There had been a series of lawsuits in the courts trying to challenge the legality , under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution , that the members of the board were not appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate , as is required of federal officers .
And the court ruled — and it ’ s a strange opinion .
It was a unanimous opinion , but there was a seven-vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then there were two other concurring opinions but separate opinions , one by Justice Thomas and one by Justice Sotomayor .
And Justice Sotomayor ’ s opinion was actually a dissent , even though she agreed with the majority opinion .
She went into perhaps her most detailed legal brief on the status of Puerto Rico .
And the important thing , I think , that Justice Sotomayor said in this decision — in her opinion was that , really , she questioned the entire legitimacy of the PROMESA board itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quote this , because — and people should read this opinion .
It was a 24-page opinion .
It says , “ These cases raise serious questions about when , if ever , the Federal Government may constitutionally exercise authority to establish territorial officers in a Territory like Puerto Rico , where Congress seemingly ceded that authority long ago to Puerto Rico itself.
” And she went on to say that the PROMESA “ Board members , tasked with determining the financial fate of a self-governing Territory , exist in a twilight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rico itself nor subject to the strictures of the Appointments Clause.
” And she goes on to say , “ I am skeptical that the Constitution countenances this freewheeling exercise of control over a population that the Federal Government has explicitly agreed to recognize as operating under a government of their own choosing.
” She basically says you are not taking into effect — into account , the rest of the court , that back in the 1950s the United States granted self-governance to Puerto Rico .
And now , by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s taken that away .
And so , she basically says , “ I ’ m going along with this Appointments Clause decision , but the basic question here has not been settled.
” And I think it ’ s the most — she ’ s had several opinions now , dissenting opinions to the court , on the issue of Puerto Rico — Sánchez Valle , Franklin Templeton and now this one , where she basically says , “ You ’ ve got to deal with the colonial relationship of Puerto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , of course , we ’ ll continue to look at that .
But up next , we ’ re going to look at an insurgent campaign to unseat 16-term congressmember and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel .
We ’ re going to speak with his challenger , Jamaal Bowman , who has just been endorsed by The New York Times , AOC , Senators Warren and Bernie Sanders .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. As hurricane season begins, we turn to Puerto Rico, which was devastated in 2017 when Hurricane Maria killed at least 3,000 people, destroyed much of the island’s power grid, leaving many without electricity for months.
A new investigation reveals the Puerto Rican government issued a $1.5 billion contract to a company for the first large power generation project since the storm without the proper oversight. The report accuses Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority of giving an unfair advantage to New Fortress Energy when it contracted with the company to convert two major power stations from operating on diesel to natural gas. The report also accused the island’s power company of failing to consider the project’s environment, safety and health impacts, and alternative sources of power like renewable energy.
The report comes amidst ongoing moves to privatize Puerto Rico’s electric grid. It was co-authored by Ingrid Vila Biaggi, who joins us now from San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is president of CAMBIO, a Puerto Rico-based environmental nonprofit, former chief of staff for the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. She co-authored the new report with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Ingrid, welcome to Democracy Now! Just lay out what you found and the level of, really, vision corruption in this.
INGRID VILA BIAGGI: Yes. First of all, thank you for having me.
And like you just mentioned, this is an ill-conceived project full of fiscally irresponsible practices, full of irregularities, that start from the absence of a desirability and convenience study, that did not even was put forth in order to determine this was a project that was beneficial to Puerto Rico.
This is the conversion to natural gas of two units for the San Juan 5 and 6 generation facility for the power authority, PREPA, in Puerto Rico. This is a project that was started as an unsolicited proposal by New Fortress Energy, which it presented December 2017, scarcely two months after Hurricane Maria, when Puerto Ricans did not have power. We didn’t even have adequate communication. And we already had this company presenting to the power authority this unsolicited proposal, which provided them with access and continued communication to the authority and a confidentiality agreement, which granted them information about these two units. Then the authority moves into an RFP process without providing information to bidders of this ongoing communication with this company or the confidentiality agreement that it had set forth, as well as other information that was vital in terms of the properties that it had strategically acquired.
So, we’re calling for the cancellation of this project, which, as you mentioned, is a $1.5 billion project, that would continue to lock in fossil fuels on the island and would prevent the aggressive integration of renewable energy, which would be the sustainable transformation that Puerto Rico deserves right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ingrid Vila Biaggi, how did New Fortress Energy get this sort of cozy relationship with the Puerto Rican — the electric power authority? It’s a company, as I understand it, that was formed by former executives of BlackRock, of Goldman Sachs and of UBS. What’s been its track record? Does it have a track record in this kind of liquid gas production for electricity anywhere else in the world?
INGRID VILA BIAGGI: It has — first of all, it doesn’t have a track record in Puerto Rico. And it has a very limited time experience in terms of natural gas. That’s one of the questions that we raised: How was this company selected versus other companies? And like I mentioned, this was presented as an unsolicited proposal to the authority. So, the project, as itself, was conceived by the private sector, which has been one of the great problems that PREPA has faced in the past in terms of lacking planning and then allowing for then private interests to push in these projects that do not serve the best interests of the people of Puerto Rico.
Our investigation is based on public documentation that we were able to obtain through litigation with PREPA. PREPA was not willing to provide us these documents, and we had to go to court to get them. So, what we found through that public documentation is all these irregularities in the process, prior to the RFP process and during the RFP process. We were able to identify, though, some law firms, for example, that were contracted by PREPA to negotiate this contract after it was awarded to New Fortress. And that same U.S. law firm represents entities for the parent company of New Fortress. We were not able to find a specific documentation regarding how they — who introduced them to Puerto Rico. And that’s, I think, part of the investigation that should be conducted by federal and local authorities, to find out and provide questions to many issues that we raise in the report.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ingrid, I’d like to ask you also about a separate report that came out that Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and also on the original transition team for President Trump, is now a lobbyist, at $30,000 a month, for the Puerto Rico electric company. What exactly is Chris Christie doing there? And what’s his expertise?
INGRID VILA BIAGGI: Yes, there is no information in terms of what he’s doing. PREPA announced last week, or it was disclosed, that this contract was set forth for the upcoming month, supposedly to help with federal funding and to get federal funding to actually arrive to Puerto Rico. However, this is another of those contracts that has no accountability and sums to the — and comes to add to over $270 million in contracts that have been awarded at PREPA for professional services and financial advisory in the past two, three years.
We have to remember, $270 million perhaps doesn’t sound like a big amount of money in the U.S., but this is a bankrupt corporation. Two hundred and seventy million dollars in public services, public professional services, amounts to a whole lot of money that could be used for the maintenance of the infrastructure, for adopting renewables, for rooftop solar projects. So, we definitely question this professional service contract, as well as the other ones that have been awarded in the authority.
AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, as you are in hurricane season, Ingrid — began on June 1st — and you have this sun-soaked island, to have poured this much money, let alone the reason that they have given it to this company — José Ortiz, the head of the power company, said that your report “showed complete ignorance” around the contract, that it was approved by the federal control board that oversees Puerto Rico’s finances. If you could respond and say what you’re demanding right now?
INGRID VILA BIAGGI: Well, I mean, José Ortiz’s reaction does not address any of the irregularities that we’ve raised in the report, and he tries to dismiss our report by questioning the professional experience of the authors — in this case, Tom Sanzillo and myself. We’re both former public officials with vast experience in contract supervision. And like I mentioned, he’s just trying to distract the attention from the report.
And in terms of your statement regarding the beginning of hurricane season, definitely, it is quite — it creates quite a bit of anxiety to know that the forecast for this hurricane season is going to be quite an active one and that Puerto Rico is not better poised to address an extreme weather event than it was when we faced Hurricane Maria, precisely because PREPA has not implemented and has not addressed renewable energy and other more sustainable alternatives to make the grid more resilient and reduce vulnerabilities for the population of Puerto Rico.
Regarding approvals during the process, those are some of the things that we question in the report. I mean, the fiscal control board approved this, yet acknowledging in their own write-up that the project was 30 to 40% above industry benchmark costs. So, I mean, we do want — that’s why we’re asking for an independent, outside investigation of this whole process, to see how a project with and a contractor with so many issues and a process with so many irregularities was able to conclude and a contract was able to be signed, and now we have this project that we have to deal with on the island.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ingrid Vila Biaggi, we thank you so much for being with us, president of CAMBIO, speaking to us from San Juan, Puerto Rico. And before we go to break in the next, oh, 30 seconds, Juan, if you could talk about the Supreme Court decision that just came down around Puerto Rico’s debt?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, Amy. Well, a couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled, but it was in the midst of all of the protests, the national protests around police abuse, so it didn’t get much attention in the U.S. It basically ruled that the appointment of the PROMESA board, which basically is running Puerto Rico’s economy, and it really supersedes the local government, that the appointment of those officials by Congress and the president was legal. There had been a series of lawsuits in the courts trying to challenge the legality, under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, that the members of the board were not appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, as is required of federal officers.
And the court ruled — and it’s a strange opinion. It was a unanimous opinion, but there was a seven-vote majority opinion written by Justice Breyer, and then there were two other concurring opinions but separate opinions, one by Justice Thomas and one by Justice Sotomayor. And Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was actually a dissent, even though she agreed with the majority opinion. She went into perhaps her most detailed legal brief on the status of Puerto Rico.
And the important thing, I think, that Justice Sotomayor said in this decision — in her opinion was that, really, she questioned the entire legitimacy of the PROMESA board itself. And she said — and I want to quote this, because — and people should read this opinion. It was a 24-page opinion. It says, “These cases raise serious questions about when, if ever, the Federal Government may constitutionally exercise authority to establish territorial officers in a Territory like Puerto Rico, where Congress seemingly ceded that authority long ago to Puerto Rico itself.”
And she went on to say that the PROMESA “Board members, tasked with determining the financial fate of a self-governing Territory, exist in a twilight zone of accountability, neither selected by Puerto Rico itself nor subject to the strictures of the Appointments Clause.”
And she goes on to say, “I am skeptical that the Constitution countenances this freewheeling exercise of control over a population that the Federal Government has explicitly agreed to recognize as operating under a government of their own choosing.”
She basically says you are not taking into effect — into account, the rest of the court, that back in the 1950s the United States granted self-governance to Puerto Rico. And now, by the imposition of the control board, that’s taken that away. And so, she basically says, “I’m going along with this Appointments Clause decision, but the basic question here has not been settled.”
And I think it’s the most — she’s had several opinions now, dissenting opinions to the court, on the issue of Puerto Rico — Sánchez Valle, Franklin Templeton and now this one, where she basically says, “You’ve got to deal with the colonial relationship of Puerto Rico.”
AMY GOODMAN: Well, and, of course, we’ll continue to look at that. But up next, we’re going to look at an insurgent campaign to unseat 16-term congressmember and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel. We’re going to speak with his challenger, Jamaal Bowman, who has just been endorsed by The New York Times, AOC, Senators Warren and Bernie Sanders. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-06-17--"Disruptor on Road to Reconciliation": Trump Doubles Down on Rally in Tulsa, Site of 1921 Massacre

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We begin today ’ s show in Tulsa , Oklahoma , where President Donald Trump will host a massive indoor campaign rally Saturday , despite concerns that the gathering will lead to a surge in COVID-19 cases in a state where the virus is already alarmingly on the rise .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Oklahoma has seen a 7.7 % increase in COVID cases — the largest in the country .
Tulsa ’ s health director said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the first since the outbreak of the coronavirus in the U.S. in March , due to concerns about the virus .
The mayor has also said he doesn ’ t want it there now .
Two Oklahoma lawyers have sued in an attempt to halt the rally , saying the event will endanger the Tulsa community .
Despite public health experts ’ warnings against large indoor gatherings , the Trump administration is moving forward with plans to fill the 19,000-seat arena for the rally , with tens of thousands more in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence , who will attend the rally , falsely claimed that , in a very real sense , Oklahoma had flattened the curve of COVID infections .
This is Trump speaking Monday .
AMY GOODMAN : The Trump campaign is requiring attendees to his rally to sign a waiver absolving the campaign of liability if an attendee contracts COVID-19 , but they are not requiring the attendees to wear masks , in contravention of the CDC .
This comes as President Trump also faces outrage for choosing Tulsa , Oklahoma , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide uprising against racism and police brutality .
The Trump administration rescheduled the rally to Saturday after originally announcing it would be held this Friday .
That ’ s June 19th , or Juneteenth , a celebration of African Americans ’ liberation from slavery .
But Tulsa is also the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history .
In 1921 , 99 years ago this month , a white mob attacked a Black neighborhood in Tulsa , killing as many as 300 African Americans .
Over two days , white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and churches in Greenwood , a thriving African American business district known at the time as “ Black Wall Street.
” When the smoke cleared , the area lay in ruins .
This is an excerpt from the History Channel documentary The Night Tulsa Burned , which features some of the survivors who were just children when the attack occurred .
This is George Monroe , followed by Juanita Burnett Arnold and Ernestine Alpha Gibbs .
AMY GOODMAN : For more , we go to Tulsa , Oklahoma , where we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of several books about the history of Tulsa ’ s African American community , including Black Wall Street : From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District , Up from the Ashes and Images of America : Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District .
So , if you could start , Hannibal Johnson , by talking about what happened 99 years ago this month ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : What happened in Tulsa in 1921 was really emblematic of the racial violence that pervaded the United States during that period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refer to the early part of the 20th century as the nadir of race relations in America , the low point of race relations in America , because of the proliferation of these so-called race riots — mostly invasions of Black communities by vigilante white mobs — and because of the prevalence of lynching , lynching being a form of domestic terrorism targeting primarily African Americans .
So this was a period fraught with racial violence and historical racial trauma .
The event in Tulsa is the worst of the so-called race riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnitude .
The business community in the Greenwood District , the Black sector in Tulsa , was highly developed — a great concentration of service providers , like doctors , lawyers , pharmacists and dentists , but all manner of business enterprises , small businesses like movie theaters , dance halls , barbershops , restaurants , grocery stores , haberdasheries , shine shops — a real concentration of Black entrepreneurship and Black wealth in a 35-square-block area in Tulsa , Oklahoma , separated from downtown Tulsa by the Frisco tracks .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial conflicts of that period , which many Americans are not aware of .
But there were — throughout the country in the World War I , post-World War I period , there were these huge conflicts .
There was the Houston mutiny of 1917 of Black soldiers against racism that they were perceiving in the military .
There was the East St. Louis riot of 1917 , the Chicago riot of 1919 and the Elaine , Arkansas , massacre , where over a hundred African Americans were massacred in Elaine .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that as African Americans began being impressed into the military , there was even more willingness , one , on the one hand , of African Americans to stand up for their rights , and also of whites to seek to suppress the African American community ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : Right .
I think it ’ s important to understand the pervasiveness and the power of white supremacy as a philosophy during this period .
So we had these African American men who went off to war in foreign countries , sacrificed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and for their American citizenship .
They come back to the United States , and they ’ re treated as , at best , second-class citizens ; at worst , subhuman .
So , Black men were much more vocal about protecting their civil rights after having served in World War I .
On the flipside of that , the white community , noticing this new sense of emboldment on the part of African Americans , was determined to enforce white supremacy .
And these events , that were called race riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service of white supremacy .
AMY GOODMAN : It ’ s very interesting , because we ’ ve been looking at the bringing down of the Confederate statues around the country and the naming of military bases after Confederates , like Fort Bragg , and this was right around the same time — not during the Civil War , but way after — that they named these bases after Confederate soldiers , again , as they saw the rising empowerment of African Americans , to pull them down .
I wanted to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a survivor of the Greenwood massacre , describing the attack on her community that took place when she was just 6 years old .
She was 92 when she did this interview .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Tulsa native , professor Olivia Hooker , talking about what happened in 1921 .
And I wanted to ask you , Hannibal Johnson , about President Trump choosing Tulsa .
Now , of course , there ’ s the surge , and we know that COVID-19 hits the African American community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community in this country .
There ’ s a surge in Tulsa .
Many of the leaders are asking for it not to be held there .
And he was going to hold it Friday , Juneteenth , the celebration of the end of slavery , which has outraged so many , that even President Trump was forced to put it off for a day .
Kamala Harris , the senator from California , vying for the vice presidency under a President Joe Biden administration , if that were to happen , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wink to white supremacists — he ’ s throwing them a welcome home party.
” Can you respond to this choice of location and the original date ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : Right .
So , the rally is troubling to a lot of people because of both the venue , Tulsa , and because of the timing .
So , we ’ re in the midst of a COVID pandemic .
We ’ re in the midst of a surge here in Tulsa .
Bringing thousands of people together in a tight space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socially distance , where people don ’ t have to wear masks , those people are going to attend the rally , then they ’ re going to spill out into the community writ large and pose substantial risk to all of us here .
So , that , in and of itself , is a problem .
The other problem with timing is that even though the rally has now been moved to June 20th as opposed to June 19th , it ’ s still Juneteenth weekend .
There still are festivities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebratory atmosphere of a very significant day in our history , particularly for African Americans .
The rally comes two-and-a-half weeks after the 99th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre .
So , it ’ s an issue of sensitivity at the very least .
And the other dynamic that ’ s important to think about is the character of the rally .
And we know something about the potential character of the rally based on prior experience with these sorts of rallies , which tend to be raucous .
They tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They tend to have elements of race and racism as part of the experience .
So that troubles a lot of people , because , here in Tulsa , we are working hard on reconciliation , on moving our community closer together as we approach the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre .
And the rally has the potential to be a disruptor to where we are on the road to reconciliation .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I wanted to ask you — of course , the country has been swept for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the murders of African Americans , but the Tulsa police Major Travis Yates recently denied the existence of systemic racism in the police force .
He said African Americans probably should be shot more .
In a recording , you can hear him say , quote , “ All of the research says we ’ re shooting African Americans about 24 % less than we probably ought to be , based on the crimes being committed.
” Your response to the police major in your city ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of context , but the remark speaks for itself .
And it is deeply troubling .
It has been rebuked by both the police chief , Wendell Franklin , and the mayor , G.T .
Bynum .
And it is not reflective of the officers , ranking officers , whom I know and have worked with for many , many , many years .
But again , it is deeply troubling .
Whatever the context may have been , whatever the intention may have been , it ’ s deeply problematic to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the midst of all the things that the country is going through and all the things that we ’ ve gone through here in Tulsa .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , you have the situation of the two kids — I don ’ t even want to say “ jaywalking ” — 13-year-old Tulsa residents who were brutalized by the police .
I mean , the video of these kids , one of them put in the car , and you see the police officer kicking him .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road — and one of these kids is 13 years old — that doesn ’ t have sidewalks .
Hannibal Johnson , have they been suspended ?
Have they been fired ?
Have they been charged with assault ?
Meaning the police officers .
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : So , all I know is that the matter is under investigation , as well it should be .
On the surface of things , based on the facts that we know , as you just recited them , this is deeply disturbing and troubling .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we need to hold people accountable , as appropriate , based on the facts and circumstances that are determined through the investigatory process .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Hannibal Johnson , we want to thank you very much for being with us , attorney and author of Black Wall Street : From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District .
Final question , 20 seconds : Are people getting reparations for what happened in 1921 ?
Wasn ’ t there a commission set up that said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a commission that was convened in 1997 , issued a final report in February of 2001 .
It recommended reparations for riot survivors and descendants of riot survivors who could prove loss of property .
There was a lawsuit filed in the early 2000s .
It was dismissed on the basis of statute of limitations .
So , cash reparations to individuals have not happened .
We are looking at reparations in other forms , including building a substantial history center here in the Greenwood District , a pathway to hope that connects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other initiatives that are more community-based rather than individually focused .
AMY GOODMAN : Thank you so much , Hannibal Johnson .
We will continue to look at Tulsa on Friday on Democracy Now !
, when we ’ ll be joined by the sister , the twin , of a man who was killed by police in 2016 .
Her great-grandmother survived the Tulsa race massacre .
This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , we go to Puerto Rico .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where President Donald Trump will host a massive indoor campaign rally Saturday, despite concerns that the gathering will lead to a surge in COVID-19 cases in a state where the virus is already alarmingly on the rise. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Oklahoma has seen a 7.7% increase in COVID cases — the largest in the country.
Tulsa’s health director said he wished the president would postpone the rally, the first since the outbreak of the coronavirus in the U.S. in March, due to concerns about the virus. The mayor has also said he doesn’t want it there now. Two Oklahoma lawyers have sued in an attempt to halt the rally, saying the event will endanger the Tulsa community.
Despite public health experts’ warnings against large indoor gatherings, the Trump administration is moving forward with plans to fill the 19,000-seat arena for the rally, with tens of thousands more in the nearby convention center. Vice President Mike Pence, who will attend the rally, falsely claimed that, in a very real sense, Oklahoma had flattened the curve of COVID infections. This is Trump speaking Monday.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Oklahoma’s at a very low number. They’ve done really fantastic work. They have a new — a pretty new, magnificent arena, as you probably have heard. And we’re getting exact numbers out, but we’re either close to or over 1 million people wanting to go. We have a 22,000-seat arena, but I think we’re going to also take the convention hall next door, and that’s going to hold 40,000. So we’ll have 22,000 plus 40,000, which would mean that we’d have over 900,000 people that won’t be able to go, but hopefully they’ll be watching.
AMY GOODMAN: The Trump campaign is requiring attendees to his rally to sign a waiver absolving the campaign of liability if an attendee contracts COVID-19, but they are not requiring the attendees to wear masks, in contravention of the CDC.
This comes as President Trump also faces outrage for choosing Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the location of his first rally amidst the nationwide uprising against racism and police brutality. The Trump administration rescheduled the rally to Saturday after originally announcing it would be held this Friday. That’s June 19th, or Juneteenth, a celebration of African Americans’ liberation from slavery.
But Tulsa is also the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history. In 1921, 99 years ago this month, a white mob attacked a Black neighborhood in Tulsa, killing as many as 300 African Americans. Over two days, white mobs set fire to homes, businesses and churches in Greenwood, a thriving African American business district known at the time as “Black Wall Street.” When the smoke cleared, the area lay in ruins.
This is an excerpt from the History Channel documentary The Night Tulsa Burned, which features some of the survivors who were just children when the attack occurred. This is George Monroe, followed by Juanita Burnett Arnold and Ernestine Alpha Gibbs.
GEORGE MONROE: I will always remember four men coming in our house with torches, and my mother saw them coming, and she put the four of we children under the bed. And from under the bed, we could see them walking to the curtains and setting fire to the curtains to set our house on fire.
JUANITA BURNETT ARNOLD: We start hearing shots. And my grandfather told us all to get up. And we got up, and we could see smoke and hear — hear shots. And we couldn’t sleep or anything. We were just frightened nearly to death.
ERNESTINE ALPHA GIBBS: As soon as daylight came, we looked outside. All of these people were coming down this railroad track. Didn’t nobody try to take a thing. And those people were coming along one track. They just had clothes on. That’s all. They didn’t try to take anything.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Tulsa, Oklahoma, where we’re joined by Hannibal Johnson, attorney and author of several books about the history of Tulsa’s African American community, including Black Wall Street: From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District, Up from the Ashes and Images of America: Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District.
So, if you could start, Hannibal Johnson, by talking about what happened 99 years ago this month?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: What happened in Tulsa in 1921 was really emblematic of the racial violence that pervaded the United States during that period. In fact, historians and sociologists refer to the early part of the 20th century as the nadir of race relations in America, the low point of race relations in America, because of the proliferation of these so-called race riots — mostly invasions of Black communities by vigilante white mobs — and because of the prevalence of lynching, lynching being a form of domestic terrorism targeting primarily African Americans. So this was a period fraught with racial violence and historical racial trauma. The event in Tulsa is the worst of the so-called race riots during this period in terms of its magnitude.
The business community in the Greenwood District, the Black sector in Tulsa, was highly developed — a great concentration of service providers, like doctors, lawyers, pharmacists and dentists, but all manner of business enterprises, small businesses like movie theaters, dance halls, barbershops, restaurants, grocery stores, haberdasheries, shine shops — a real concentration of Black entrepreneurship and Black wealth in a 35-square-block area in Tulsa, Oklahoma, separated from downtown Tulsa by the Frisco tracks.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hannibal Johnson, you mentioned the racial conflicts of that period, which many Americans are not aware of. But there were — throughout the country in the World War I, post-World War I period, there were these huge conflicts. There was the Houston mutiny of 1917 of Black soldiers against racism that they were perceiving in the military. There was the East St. Louis riot of 1917, the Chicago riot of 1919 and the Elaine, Arkansas, massacre, where over a hundred African Americans were massacred in Elaine. Was part of this the result of the fact that as African Americans began being impressed into the military, there was even more willingness, one, on the one hand, of African Americans to stand up for their rights, and also of whites to seek to suppress the African American community?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: Right. I think it’s important to understand the pervasiveness and the power of white supremacy as a philosophy during this period. So we had these African American men who went off to war in foreign countries, sacrificed their lives, potentially, for the country and for their American citizenship. They come back to the United States, and they’re treated as, at best, second-class citizens; at worst, subhuman. So, Black men were much more vocal about protecting their civil rights after having served in World War I. On the flipside of that, the white community, noticing this new sense of emboldment on the part of African Americans, was determined to enforce white supremacy. And these events, that were called race riots, and these lynchings are really in service of white supremacy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s very interesting, because we’ve been looking at the bringing down of the Confederate statues around the country and the naming of military bases after Confederates, like Fort Bragg, and this was right around the same time — not during the Civil War, but way after — that they named these bases after Confederate soldiers, again, as they saw the rising empowerment of African Americans, to pull them down. I wanted to go to Tulsa native, professor Olivia Hooker, a survivor of the Greenwood massacre, describing the attack on her community that took place when she was just 6 years old. She was 92 when she did this interview.
OLIVIA HOOKER: I refuse to call it a “riot,” because it was really, you know, whites decided to burn down the homes of 10,000 people. So, that was not a riot. It was planned desecration. … And when the mobs came in, they had those pine, you know, knots all lighted up, and they set things on fire. And my mother refused to run, because she was busy putting water on the house to try to keep it from burning. And so she put the children under the big oak table. You know, they had those great big tables in those days, with little nooks under them. So we were under the table when the mobs came in.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Tulsa native, professor Olivia Hooker, talking about what happened in 1921. And I wanted to ask you, Hannibal Johnson, about President Trump choosing Tulsa. Now, of course, there’s the surge, and we know that COVID-19 hits the African American community much harder than the rest of the community in this country. There’s a surge in Tulsa. Many of the leaders are asking for it not to be held there. And he was going to hold it Friday, Juneteenth, the celebration of the end of slavery, which has outraged so many, that even President Trump was forced to put it off for a day. Kamala Harris, the senator from California, vying for the vice presidency under a President Joe Biden administration, if that were to happen, said, “This isn’ just a wink to white supremacists — he’s throwing them a welcome home party.” Can you respond to this choice of location and the original date?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: Right. So, the rally is troubling to a lot of people because of both the venue, Tulsa, and because of the timing. So, we’re in the midst of a COVID pandemic. We’re in the midst of a surge here in Tulsa. Bringing thousands of people together in a tight space where it’s not possible to socially distance, where people don’t have to wear masks, those people are going to attend the rally, then they’re going to spill out into the community writ large and pose substantial risk to all of us here. So, that, in and of itself, is a problem.
The other problem with timing is that even though the rally has now been moved to June 20th as opposed to June 19th, it’s still Juneteenth weekend. There still are festivities going on. It’s a celebratory atmosphere of a very significant day in our history, particularly for African Americans. The rally comes two-and-a-half weeks after the 99th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre. So, it’s an issue of sensitivity at the very least.
And the other dynamic that’s important to think about is the character of the rally. And we know something about the potential character of the rally based on prior experience with these sorts of rallies, which tend to be raucous. They tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive. They tend to have elements of race and racism as part of the experience. So that troubles a lot of people, because, here in Tulsa, we are working hard on reconciliation, on moving our community closer together as we approach the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre. And the rally has the potential to be a disruptor to where we are on the road to reconciliation.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — of course, the country has been swept for weeks now by protests over police abuse and the murders of African Americans, but the Tulsa police Major Travis Yates recently denied the existence of systemic racism in the police force. He said African Americans probably should be shot more. In a recording, you can hear him say, quote, “All of the research says we’re shooting African Americans about 24% less than we probably ought to be, based on the crimes being committed.” Your response to the police major in your city?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: Well, he says that remark was taken out of context, but the remark speaks for itself. And it is deeply troubling. It has been rebuked by both the police chief, Wendell Franklin, and the mayor, G.T. Bynum. And it is not reflective of the officers, ranking officers, whom I know and have worked with for many, many, many years. But again, it is deeply troubling. Whatever the context may have been, whatever the intention may have been, it’s deeply problematic to put those words together on a radio show in the midst of all the things that the country is going through and all the things that we’ve gone through here in Tulsa.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, you have the situation of the two kids — I don’t even want to say “jaywalking” — 13-year-old Tulsa residents who were brutalized by the police. I mean, the video of these kids, one of them put in the car, and you see the police officer kicking him. They accuse him of jaywalking on a rural road — and one of these kids is 13 years old — that doesn’t have sidewalks. Hannibal Johnson, have they been suspended? Have they been fired? Have they been charged with assault? Meaning the police officers.
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: So, all I know is that the matter is under investigation, as well it should be. On the surface of things, based on the facts that we know, as you just recited them, this is deeply disturbing and troubling. So we need to find the facts, and we need to hold people accountable, as appropriate, based on the facts and circumstances that are determined through the investigatory process.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Hannibal Johnson, we want to thank you very much for being with us, attorney and author of Black Wall Street: From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District. Final question, 20 seconds: Are people getting reparations for what happened in 1921? Wasn’t there a commission set up that said they should?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: There was a commission that was convened in 1997, issued a final report in February of 2001. It recommended reparations for riot survivors and descendants of riot survivors who could prove loss of property. There was a lawsuit filed in the early 2000s. It was dismissed on the basis of statute of limitations. So, cash reparations to individuals have not happened. We are looking at reparations in other forms, including building a substantial history center here in the Greenwood District, a pathway to hope that connects various sites in the Greenwood District, and other initiatives that are more community-based rather than individually focused.
AMY GOODMAN: Thank you so much, Hannibal Johnson. We will continue to look at Tulsa on Friday on Democracy Now!, when we’ll be joined by the sister, the twin, of a man who was killed by police in 2016. Her great-grandmother survived the Tulsa race massacre.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go to Puerto Rico. Stay with us.