democracynow--2020-01-31--"Disclosure": Groundbreaking Documentary Examines a Century of Trans Representation in Film & TV

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
This is The War and Peace Report .
We ’ re broadcasting from the Sundance Film Festival in Park City , Utah .
In South Dakota , the Republican-controlled House passed a bill Wednesday that criminalizes gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth .
The bill , which sailed through the House by a two-to-one margin , would make it a felony for doctors to provide anyone under the age of 16 with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare .
Medical professionals who provide this care could face up to 10 years in prison .
Parents and health professionals say the bill will take away life-saving treatments for transgender youth .
This came the same week a South Dakota lawmaker introduced two more anti-trans bills into the Legislature , the latest of more than 25 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced around the country this year .
As this assault on transgender lives takes place in South Dakota and across the country , we turn to a groundbreaking film that just premiered here at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s called Disclosure : Trans Lives on Screen .
The documentary examines the depiction of transgender people in television and film for more than a century , from the 1914 silent film A Florida Enchantment to the Oscar-winning 1999 film Boys Don ’ t Cry to the new hit television series Pose .
Through in-depth interviews with transgender actors , activists and writers , the documentary reveals the way Hollywood and the media both manufacture and reflect widespread misunderstandings and prejudices against trans people .
The film also champions the trans people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are fighting tirelessly for accurate and dignified representation on screen .
In this clip from the beginning of Disclosure , we first hear the voice of the legendary transgender actress and activist Laverne Cox .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s trans actress Laverne Cox with a clip from Disclosure : Trans Lives on Screen .
Well , this week we spoke with the film ’ s director , Sam Feder , and two of the documentary ’ s subjects , actress Jen Richards and the award-winning director Yance Ford .
They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the world premiere of Disclosure .
I began by asking director Sam Feder why he decided to take on this subject years ago .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ ll continue with our conversation on the new documentary Disclosure in 15 seconds .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman at Sundance .
We continue our conversation about the new film Disclosure : Trans Lives on Screen , with actress Jen Richards , Oscar-nominated director Yance Ford , ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio and the film ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sam to talk about depictions of trans men on screen , beginning with the 1999 Oscar-winning film Boys Don ’ t Cry .
CHASE STRANGIO : Yeah , absolutely .
And I just think this film is such a critical intervention in every aspect of the ways that power is working to erase , diminish and attack trans people .
And I see it all the time .
I travel around the country fighting back against legislation .
I litigate cases .
We were just before the United States Supreme Court arguing against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ people , and then trans people in particular , shouldn ’ t be protected under federal law .
And there you could see , even knowing that there were trans people in the courtroom , you had justices , from Justice Gorsuch to Justice Sotomayor , really not being able to imagine trans existence outside those very tropes that we see on film and television .
And Judge Gorsuch said something at argument in the Title VII cases in October along the lines of , “ Well , wouldn ’ t it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society ?
” And that sense of disruption is him superimposing the images that he ’ s likely seen from film and television , that this film really does confront us with , and putting that over even the trans people like myself who were sitting there right before him .
And we have to do the work of teaching people what they have already been told and then allowing our trans bodies , our trans voices and our trans selves to undo all of that work that has been done against us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical in that , in the fight in legislatures , in Congress and before the courts .
AMY GOODMAN : Actress Jen Richards , Oscar-nominated director Yance Ford , ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio and Sam Feder , the director of Disclosure : Trans Lives on Screen .
That does it for our show .
I ’ m speaking today at 2 p.m. at the Park City Museum on Main Street .
Special thanks to our crew here at Park City TV : Danielle Turner , Parker Martin , Diego Romo , Jaclyn Daly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And our amazing Democracy Now !
crew here in Utah and in New York .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks so much for joining us from Park City , Utah .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. This is The War and Peace Report. We’re broadcasting from the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
In South Dakota, the Republican-controlled House passed a bill Wednesday that criminalizes gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth. The bill, which sailed through the House by a two-to-one margin, would make it a felony for doctors to provide anyone under the age of 16 with puberty blockers, hormones and other transition-related healthcare. Medical professionals who provide this care could face up to 10 years in prison. Parents and health professionals say the bill will take away life-saving treatments for transgender youth. This came the same week a South Dakota lawmaker introduced two more anti-trans bills into the Legislature, the latest of more than 25 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced around the country this year.
As this assault on transgender lives takes place in South Dakota and across the country, we turn to a groundbreaking film that just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. It’s called Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen. The documentary examines the depiction of transgender people in television and film for more than a century, from the 1914 silent film A Florida Enchantment to the Oscar-winning 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry to the new hit television series Pose. Through in-depth interviews with transgender actors, activists and writers, the documentary reveals the way Hollywood and the media both manufacture and reflect widespread misunderstandings and prejudices against trans people. The film also champions the trans people in film and television who have fought and are fighting tirelessly for accurate and dignified representation on screen.
In this clip from the beginning of Disclosure, we first hear the voice of the legendary transgender actress and activist Laverne Cox.
LAVERNE COX: I never thought I’d live in a world where trans people would be celebrated, on or off the screen.
DANIELA VEGA: Thank you. Thank you so much for this moment.
LAVERNE COX: I never thought the media would stop asking horrible questions —
OPRAH WINFREY: How do you hide your penis?
LAVERNE COX: — and start treating us with respect.
OPRAH WINFREY: You kept it quiet because you said you didn’t want to become othered.
LAVERNE COX: Now look at how far we’ve come.
DELEGATE DANICA ROEM: We have so much more representation in government, in media.
LAVERNE COX: We are everywhere.
ALEXANDRA GREY: And you never know what those positive images do for other people. You never know.
JEN RICHARDS: For the first time trans people are taking center of their own storytelling.
LAVERNE COX: At this point where we’re talking really about unprecedented trans visibility, trans people are being murdered disproportionately still.
TIQ MILAN: That’s the paradox of our representation, is the more we are seen, the more we are violated.
JAMIE CLAYTON: The more positive representation there is, the more confidence the community gains, which then puts us in more danger.
UNIDENTIFIED: I go into the women’s restroom, then I’ve committed a crime. If I go in the men’s restroom, then everybody knows.
ZACKARY DRUCKER: I think all of us in the community have had those moments of being like, “Is this going to somehow alienate people who aren’t ready yet?”
SUSAN STRYKER: Why is it that trans issues have become like a front-and-center issue in the culture wars?
ZACKARY DRUCKER: I think capitalizing on people’s fear is what has landed us in this moment right now, and you have hope on one side and fear on the other.
LAVERNE COX: I think, for a very long time, the ways in which trans people have been represented on screen have suggested that we’re not real, have suggested that we’re mentally ill, that we don’t exist. And yet here I am. Yet here we are. And we’ve always been here.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s trans actress Laverne Cox with a clip from Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen. Well, this week we spoke with the film’s director, Sam Feder, and two of the documentary’s subjects, actress Jen Richards and the award-winning director Yance Ford. They were here in Park City, Utah, for the world premiere of Disclosure. I began by asking director Sam Feder why he decided to take on this subject years ago.
SAM FEDER: OK. Well, first, thank you for having me here. I think maybe the one thing that I’d be more excited about than having a Sundance premiere is being on this show. So thank you very much. I’m thrilled to be here.
So, what made me decide to make this film? You know, in 2014, Laverne Cox was on the cover of Time magazine, and I remember seeing her in this beautiful blue dress, and the headline read “The Transgender Tipping Point.” And there was all this celebration around that. And when I looked off the page, in the real world, that was not the reality. Something really felt amiss with that. You know, trans people are three times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population, four times more likely if you’re a trans person of color. We’re witnessing an epidemic of trans women being murdered, particularly black trans women. The suicide rates for trans men are surging. So that’s the reality that I was witnessing and living in. So I was trying to reconcile these two things happening at the same time — right? — the rise of visibility and the rise of social and legislative violence. So I wanted to look at the legacy of those images to understand how we got there and to understand how to use the excitement around positive visibility to work on pushing back against the legislation that’s trying to legislate us out of existence.
AMY GOODMAN: And why did you call the film Disclosure?
SAM FEDER: I think one of the — like, one of the most ubiquitous tropes about us is the need to disclose — right? — that the onus is on us to reveal something about us that is a secret, that no one else knows, that we’re using, you know, to deceive, we’re using to get to something, and that we have something to disclose, as if not everyone has information that doesn’t need to be shared. Jen talks about it really beautifully in the film, how it’s — the idea of disclosure is really prioritizing someone else’s experience over your own. So, that is such a rampant notion in most trans people’s minds and most conversations around trans lives, is the idea of disclosure. And so, just that’s why I wanted to call it that.
AMY GOODMAN: And how does it feel to be premiering this at the Sundance Film Festival, where there are so many Hollywood gatekeepers? If you can describe that and then also give us a sort of a history in a nutshell of representation?
SAM FEDER: I mean, it’s thrilling for me, you know, to be here with all the Hollywood gatekeepers. As a documentarian, like, you get to explore these issues with such nuance and time, as opposed to the actors, who want to get work, you know, and want to speak their truth, but also want to have a career. And so, I am thrilled to be able to be the one to push back and explain how violent these images are. And the fact that they might be heard by the gatekeepers is incredibly exciting. So, that’s the goal.
AMY GOODMAN: The history in a nutshell.
SAM FEDER: The history in a nutshell. What was so amazing about doing this research was finding clips actually from like the 1890s, right? I think the first clip we show in the film is from 1901. And it’s from one of the Edison production houses where he was doing these screen tests. And you see a female impersonator of the time wearing a wig and, you know, kind of just dancing around. I think it’s actually one of the first on-screen kisses — is that how you say it? — first on-screen kiss we see.
And so, I was really taken aback by how this idea of transgressing gender has been a plot device since the beginning of celluloid and how it’s so ingrained in the DNA of film. And you see that sort of imagery of putting a man in a dress as a joke evolve from making fun of women to making fun of gay men to then a stand-in for trans women. There’s this film from the Florida Enchantment — there’s a film called A Florida Enchantment from 1914, and there you start to see how gender transgression and racism have been so also deeply embedded, intertwined together and embedded in our film history.
AMY GOODMAN: And right around that time, Yance Ford, is Birth of a Nation. And you go into this, Sam, in Disclosure, the horrific racist film that was premiered at the White House under President Wilson.
YANCE FORD: Yeah. What’s remarkable is, D.W. Griffith is sort of this embodiment of the beginnings of just sort of massacring the reality of what it means to be black in America, what it means to be trans in America. He takes the vulnerable — the most vulnerable populations, the most vulnerable people, and turns them into devices for his narrative pleasure, you know, to reinforce the predatory black man and then to, on top of that, morph the trans body into something that is an object of ridicule, to be laughed at by us all, but also just to be discarded, to be thrown away.
And, you know, I think that someone, anyone, would have gotten to the first jump cut to advance the story in film. It’s a great editing moment in the history of film. But I also think the fact that we don’t talk about how problematic the images that he created are helps to perpetuate those images. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m so glad that Disclosure exists now, because it really forces people to look. And I think that for so long people have consumed images without thinking about what they’re seeing. And Disclosure really makes you think about what you’re watching, in a way that, in my experience of watching the film for the first time, helps to undo all of those stereotypes and all of that damage, begins to sort of turn back upon itself and turn into something that is potential healing.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Birth of a Nation became a major recruiting film for the Ku Klux Klan.
YANCE FORD: Oh, yeah. It still is. It still is.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to another clip from Disclosure. This begins with the actress and writer Bianca Leigh. BIANCA LEIGH: As a trans person, you have the most sensitive radar to tell the difference between you’re laughing with us — JOHN KELSO: [played by John Cusack] In the phone book, you were listed as F. Deveau. CHABLIS DEVEAU: [played by Lady Chablis] The F stands for “Frank,” hon. That’s me. BIANCA LEIGH: — or you’re laughing at us. TED MOSBY: [played by Josh Radnor] This is the men’s room. JANET: [played by Amber Stevens West] I know. I’m a dude. BIANCA LEIGH: Trans jokes? Really? JACKIE: [played by Bruce A. Young] Hello, Joel. I’m Jackie. BIANCA LEIGH: Most of us have a good sense of humor. We’ve had to have a good sense of humor. TRANS CHARACTER: Why am I being arrested? DET. STAN WOJCIEHOWICZ: [played by Max Gail] I told you. It’s called an unclassified misdemeanor. BIANCA LEIGH: But we don’t want to be the butt of jokes. 1ST LT. CATHERINE GATES: [played by Ann Sheridan] Oh, wait a minute. I forgot something. CAPT. HENRI ROCHARD: [played by Cary Grant] What? 1ST LT. CATHERINE GATES: Can you talk like a woman? CAPT. HENRI ROCHARD:You mean like this? 1ST LT. CATHERINE GATES: That’s awful. Can’t you do better than that? CAPT. HENRI ROCHARD:No. JEN RICHARDS: Every trans person carries within themself a history of trans representation just in terms of what they’ve seen themselves. AGENT DENNIS: [played by David Duchovny] Coop. AGENT DALE COOPER: [played by Kyle MacLachlan] Dennis? YOUNGER BEAR: [played by Cal Bellini] Why don’t you live with me, and I’ll be your wife? JEN RICHARDS: What trans people really need, though, is a sense of a broader history of that representation, so that they can kind of find themselves in it.
AMY GOODMAN: That clip from the new trans life documentary that has just premiered at the Sundance Film Festival called Disclosure. That was actress and writer Jen Richards, one of the stars of the Netflix show Tales of the City and the primetime Emmy-nominated 2016 web series Her Story, which Richards also co-created. Jen, it’s great to have you with us. I’m a real fan of your work. Continue what you’re saying in this clip.
JEN RICHARDS: There is a lack of historical context for trans people, which we actually see in the legislation, as well. There’s this notion that it’s a new phenomenon, that trans people are a sudden trend that need to be combated, because we have this continual historical forgetting. We don’t know our own past. We don’t know that we’ve been around, because we don’t get to see those images.
What Sam’s film really does is situate us today in a historical legacy. I think a lot about one specific idea, just this notion of who gets to play trans people on screen. And I had heard so many times from producers in Hollywood that, “Well, we have to put, you know, this particular star, this man, to play this trans woman, in order to get the film made and push the conversation forward.” And one of the moments that we discuss in the film is that this practice has been going on for over 40 years, and so it’s just this ahistorical reading.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about some of these films. And some of these films, as Sam brings us in Disclosure, were considered groundbreaking, especially around trans life. You had The Crying Game of 1992. You had Boys Don’t Cry of 1999. But talk about what you felt was so critical, why they were such a turning point, but also problematic.
JEN RICHARDS: I mean, The Crying Game is a wonderful example. I love that film. It’s an absolutely beautiful film. There was something incredibly galvanizing and exciting about seeing that character on screen, because it was someone I could identify with. But there’s also a profound —
AMY GOODMAN: And can you, for people who haven’t seen it, in a nutshell?
JEN RICHARDS: Well, I think — are we allowed to spoil Crying Game now? It’s been 20 years. Yes. A character falls for and starts dating this show girl that he sees. And in the moment of her disrobing, as they’re about to have sex, he realizes that she has a penis and is therefore really a man. And his response is to flee to the bathroom and aggressively vomit. And then this trope of men vomiting in response to the disclosure of a trans body has been repeated endlessly, in Ace Ventura, in Family Guy, over and over again. And for trans people ourselves, those images just get placed in our brains and are really hard to dislodge. I’ve dated men for many years, and that image was always running through my mind. Every time I went to disclose to someone that I was trans, that’s the image in my head, is of a man responding. And —
AMY GOODMAN: Vomiting.
JEN RICHARDS: Vomiting, yeah, at the reality of my body, that that’s an appropriate and common response, because that’s the only response I had ever seen was on screen. And so that’s what I am taught. And that’s what the men are taught, that that’s an appropriate reaction. That’s what the whole world is taught is an appropriate reaction, that I’m a legitimate object of disgust. There’s also the fascination with the trans body, and that’s the part that I can at least identify with in a somewhat positive way. There’s a certain glamour and beauty on screen, as well. But it’s always coupled with this violent reaction.
AMY GOODMAN: And Boys Don’t Cry?
JEN RICHARDS: I mean, there’s a similar dual consciousness. I hear this over and over again, from trans men in particular. There’s an excitement and a thrill and a deep sense of identification with seeing a trans character on screen who is operating fully and openly in his masculinity and enjoying his maleness. But then again, it’s coupled with a violent rape and a homicide, a murder. And so, we could never have —
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, that is based on a real story, of Brandon Teena in Nebraska.
JEN RICHARDS: Exactly. We carry those stories with us all the time. That’s what we’re thinking of all the time as we move through the world. And so we have this dual consciousness from these images.
AMY GOODMAN: So, if you could talk about who plays trans people on television and in film?
JEN RICHARDS: One of the biggest issues I’ve had with the way that Hollywood has represented trans people is that it’s very, very common for Hollywood to cast cis men as trans women and cis women as trans men. And in so doing, they’re always reinforcing this notion that at the end of the day the trans person is really the gender that they were assigned at birth rather than who they actually are in the world. And for the most part, it’s a narrative trope. It’s a dramatic device, because the disclosure itself is considered so dramatic, and there’s this notion of deception that always runs through it.
But then there’s this additional layer, that we talk about in the film, where when we lavish awards and attention and praise onto the actors doing this, for this incredible transformational act that they do on screen, we’re also continually seeing those actors in their assigned gender. We’re seeing Jared Leto. We’re seeing Jeffrey Tambor, Eddie Redmayne and Hilary Swank, which, again, reinforces in the minds of the public that a trans person is really, you know, that gender.
AMY GOODMAN: Hilary Swank, of course, for Boys Don’t Cry and Eddie Redmayne for The Danish Girl. Talk about The Danish Girl.
JEN RICHARDS: The Danish Girl, I have very complicated feelings about. I think it’s a really lovely film. I worked with Eddie a little bit, and he’s a wonderful actor. And he took the role very seriously, and I thought he found some really beautiful moments. And the film did open up the idea of trans people to many people who wouldn’t have otherwise known. You know, I know many trans people whose parents love The Danish Girl, and I think that’s who the movie is made for. But again, when we see Eddie being awarded for his performance in that film, we’re still seeing a man in his tuxedo who is getting that award.
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue with our conversation on the new documentary Disclosure in 15 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman at Sundance. We continue our conversation about the new film Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen, with actress Jen Richards, Oscar-nominated director Yance Ford, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio and the film’s director Sam Feder. I asked Sam to talk about depictions of trans men on screen, beginning with the 1999 Oscar-winning film Boys Don’t Cry.
AMY GOODMAN: Sam Feder, take it from there and the films that you show, specifically trans men being portrayed in television and on the silver screen.
SAM FEDER: I mean, we were talking about Boys Don’t Cry. I think what’s problematic with Boys Don’t Cry is that it’s — it a true story, and we need to understand these real stories. It’s just, why is that the story that gets told over and over? Like, what is the fascination with seeing us die? What is the fascination with seeing us get raped and killed again and again? And I’m just really interested in that intersection for a nontrans audience. Like, that’s where we get our audience? That’s the only way we can get an audience, is through pity and victimhood? And so, that’s a real — that’s where I have a lot of difficulty with that film. And I also have a lot of difficulty with the erasure of the black man who was also killed that night in the real story, Phillip DeVine. And so, there is a— and all of the films, actually. There’s a lot to talk about with all of the films, and we try to be really nuanced in our approach to everything.
AMY GOODMAN: You point out that that man is not in the film.
SAM FEDER: He’s not in the film.
AMY GOODMAN: It was — because it’s based on the true story of Brandon Teena.
SAM FEDER: It’s based on the true story.
AMY GOODMAN: But an African-American man was also murdered that night.
SAM FEDER: Three people were murdered that night, and the film only addresses the two white people. And so, that’s — I think that’s — yeah, I don’t have the proper word to say on air for that. But the film —
AMY GOODMAN: Yance Ford, do you have a proper word?
YANCE FORD: This is the internet, right?
AMY GOODMAN: It is not. I mean, it is, but we’re also on television.
YANCE FORD: I mean, it is — again, I loved Boys Don’t Cry. I loved it. But to realize that Phillip DeVine was erased from that story, that his death did not matter enough to the filmmakers to include it in that film, is another act of violence. Right? It is erasing him as if he didn’t matter. But then it is also telling every black trans person, every black gay person, every black ally that your death does not matter, that your presence in this person’s life and your being an ally to that person did not matter.
And I think that one of the things that directors have to do is to be more conscious. Like, I think we have to live in the moment of our creation and understand what we’re doing when we make choices like that. You can’t just wipe someone out of history. He was there, and he’s not here now, just like Brandon Teena. And the more people begin to understand the impact of their decisions creatively, and the more people realize by watching Disclosure that the accumulation of 100 years of these types of choices have on a community, like have on actual human beings, hopefully, for me, that will move people to be smarter, more empathetic and more deliberate about their decision-making, because erasing him is just — I mean, it’s an act of violence, but it’s also just lazy.
AMY GOODMAN: You say in the film, in this very touching moment, among an endless stream of deeply moving moments, “If we can’t see us, we can’t be us.”
YANCE FORD: You know, the wonderful thing about Marian Wright Edelman is that she has such wisdom across the range of human experience. When she said that about children, I don’t think that she would exclude trans children or gender nonconforming children or children who feel like they are nonbinary. She means all of us when she says that. And I think that, again, to have us be homicide victims or to be rape victims or to be exposed in a violent way and then discarded, we don’t need to see any more of that. We see that every day.
AMY GOODMAN: Jen Richards?
JEN RICHARDS: What interests me, that I just realized as we’re talking, that there’s a parallel between The Danish Girl and Boys Don’t Cry, in that both are trans stories that are written and directed and performed by cis people for a cis audience. And in both cases, the complexity of the actual situation is erased in favor of something that’s more easy to package.
In the case of The Danish Girl, Lili Elbe was this incredibly kind of daring, progressive woman, and it was clear that her and her wife were always in a lesbian relationship, because her wife went on to do erotic lesbian painting for the rest of their life. They lived happily as a lesbian couple for many years. And it was only after six surgeries that Lili Elbe eventually did die, because she was always pushing the boundaries of medical science, and that they were operating in this prewar, very artistic kind of queer culture at the time. And so, all that complexity is lost, and instead we have this story of this man who has to become a woman, and then his wife leaves him for this strapping Austrian guy. And so we erase all the actual queerness of it. And again, it reinforces this historical forgetting, as if queer people hadn’t always been around.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to another clip from this remarkable documentary that’s just premiered at Sundance called Disclosure, where Laverne Cox discusses portrayals of trans people in the media. It begins with the comedian Flip Wilson playing that famous character Geraldine on The Flip Wilson Show. GERALDINE JONES: [played by Flip Wilson] Hit it, maestro! [singing] All of me / Why not take all of me / Can’t you see / I’m no good without you. LAVERNE COX: What’s interesting for me about growing up in Mobile, Alabama, and then having my first interactions with what it meant to be transgender happening on television is that even when characters weren’t necessarily trans identified, I think those characters affected how I thought of myself as a trans person and how the general public probably thinks about trans people. And one of those early images for me was the character of Geraldine from The Flip Wilson Show. GERALDINE JONES: [singing] I can’t stop wanting you. Sing the song, Ray! RAY CHARLES: [singing] It’s useless to say. LAVERNE COX: I remember I would watch it with my mom and my brother. And my mother loved Geraldine and would laugh at that character, so it was something that existed in the realm of humor. But whenever there was something trans this or sex change that — MARY CAMPBELL: [played by Cathryn Damon] A sex change operation? A sex change operation? JODIE DALLAS: [played by Billy Crystal] Right. MARY CAMPBELL: better sit down. LAVERNE COX: — I would be very interested, and I would sort of lean in, but very sort of discreetly. These images that don’t seem to comport with like the person that I knew I was. And so, everything that was trans about me, it made me just hate.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet another clip from Disclosure. And that, of course, is Laverne Cox, who is the famous actress, is a trans woman, who is also one of the executive producers of this documentary, Disclosure. Yance Ford, as we go through this history, take it to today, the significance of media representation and whether you think there is hope, whether — where you see it changing in the most important ways and what you want to see.
YANCE FORD: Sure. I am hopeful, because there are so many trans young people who are aspiring filmmakers, directors, writers, actors, who are not asking permission to enter into these professions. They are not asking for anyone’s approval to pursue their dreams. And so, when I see these kids and they ask me about filmmaking or documentary filmmaking, they don’t realize that they are giving me the gift of hope, because I know that after my lifetime these kids will be the ones to reverse this hundred-year history that Disclosure lays out so well and in such an incredible manner for us all to watch. The next hundred years of cinema are going to be written by trans makers, are going to be written by trans actors and writers and directors. And that, for me, is an incredible feeling, to know that another generation of trans kids will not have to ingest the things that I did when I was growing up and then live out the effects of that over the course of their lifetime.
AMY GOODMAN: Sam Feder, you’re the director of Disclosure. You have a remarkable statistic in the film. What is it? Something like 80%?
SAM FEDER: Approximately 80% of Americans say they don’t think they’ve ever met a trans person. They actually probably have; they just don’t know it. And so, that means that everything they know about trans people comes from film and television.
AMY GOODMAN: And that’s why it is so critical, which takes us to Chase Strangio. Chase, you work on legislation all over this country. Right now we’re talking about what’s happening in South Dakota and in states around the country that are introducing anti-trans legislation. And when it doesn’t pass the first time, they do it again. Can you talk about, as you’re featured in the film, as well, Disclosure, the connection between media representations and the laws that are put into place or fought back against all over this country?
CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, absolutely. And I just think this film is such a critical intervention in every aspect of the ways that power is working to erase, diminish and attack trans people. And I see it all the time. I travel around the country fighting back against legislation. I litigate cases. We were just before the United States Supreme Court arguing against the Trump administration’s position that LGBTQ people, and then trans people in particular, shouldn’t be protected under federal law. And there you could see, even knowing that there were trans people in the courtroom, you had justices, from Justice Gorsuch to Justice Sotomayor, really not being able to imagine trans existence outside those very tropes that we see on film and television. And Judge Gorsuch said something at argument in the Title VII cases in October along the lines of, “Well, wouldn’t it be disruptive to include trans people in society?” And that sense of disruption is him superimposing the images that he’s likely seen from film and television, that this film really does confront us with, and putting that over even the trans people like myself who were sitting there right before him. And we have to do the work of teaching people what they have already been told and then allowing our trans bodies, our trans voices and our trans selves to undo all of that work that has been done against us all these years. And Disclosure is critical in that, in the fight in legislatures, in Congress and before the courts.
AMY GOODMAN: Chase, the film highlights the media’s complicity in and involvement in sensationalizing and diminishing trans people and their stories. There’s an amazing clip with Katie Couric and Oprah Winfrey. Can you talk about the role, how that translates into even the work that you do?
CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, there’s this idea that the trans person is always something to be laughed at, something to be dissected and explored, something — you know, a person whose body is open to public debate. This idea that we could look at someone and ask them about their genitals and then laugh at them is the very thing that authorizes lawmakers to think that it is in our best interest to constrain the ability for us to survive in our bodies. So, the media’s mocking of us, the media’s insistence that they not teach themselves about how we exist in the world is the very thing that is — it’s really the natural progression into the legislation that we’re seeing. And so, I think we all have a responsibility to tell more accountable stories and contend with our bodies in ways that treat us with just basic human dignity.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to end with Jen Richards and your work as a writer, as an actress, where you see the rays of hope are right now, in the kind of work that you’re doing and that you’re seeing other people doing, the openings. And would you consider it a victory if people didn’t even say “trans actress”?
JEN RICHARDS: I love that we’re focusing on that, as well, because that’s an important pairing with the critique, is to applaud the things that are done well. And you’re a fan of Tales of the City, and I think that’s a really wonderful contemporary example of a show that had trans directors, trans writers, trans consultants, trans actors. And what we then see is a really complicated, nuanced portrayal of trans lives and in diverse kinds of trans lives. I think a lot about a email I got from a mom, who had to tell me that she watched her trans daughter sit on the floor and watch my episode of Tales of the City three times in row, back to back. And I think about what impact that will have on that child, that they get to see that and that that’s the image and those are the kinds of stories that will carry her forward into her life. So, I’m thrilled that those kinds of things are beginning to happen more and more frequently. And it’s because of conversations like we’ve been having behind the scenes over the last decade and will now be brought forward into the public through Sam’s film.
AMY GOODMAN: Actress Jen Richards, Oscar-nominated director Yance Ford, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio and Sam Feder, the director of Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen.
That does it for our show. I’m speaking today at 2 p.m. at the Park City Museum on Main Street.
Special thanks to our crew here at Park City TV: Danielle Turner, Parker Martin, Diego Romo, Jaclyn Daly, and Yurivia and Ethan Barrios. And our amazing Democracy Now! crew here in Utah and in New York. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us from Park City, Utah.


democracynow--2020-01-31--Inappropriate, Not Impeachable: Key GOP Senator's "Astonishing" Statement Clears Way for Acquittal

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : The Republican-led Senate appears poised to acquit President Trump as early as today in just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history .
On Thursday night , Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee announced he would vote against calling witnesses .
Alexander said it was inappropriate for Trump to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political rival , but he went on to say , quote , “ There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet the United States Constitution ’ s high bar for an impeachable offense , ” unquote .
Democrats need four Republican senators to support calling for witnesses , but it appears they ’ ll fall short .
Democrats were hoping to hear testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton .
In a forthcoming book , Bolton has reportedly written that Trump personally told him he wanted to maintain a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to his political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said they will vote yes today on witnesses .
If Lisa Murkowski of Alaska votes with them , it will result in a 50-50 tie , meaning no witnesses will be called , unless Chief Justice John Roberts casts a tiebreaking vote , which is seen as highly unlikely .
If the vote to call witnesses fails , the Republican leadership is expected to move quickly to end the trial and vote to acquit the president .
Hours before he made his announcement , Republican Senator Lamar Alexander , along with Lisa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate trial , asking if Bolton ’ s testimony would even matter , because Trump ’ s legal defense team claims the allegations , even if true , don ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Adam Schiff both responded .
This is Philbin .
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about the impeachment trial , we ’ re joined by Dahlia Lithwick , senior editor at Slate.com , where she is the senior legal correspondent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to Democracy Now !
So , this is a crucial day .
Explain what ’ s going to happen today , what we know and what we don ’ t know .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : I think we ’ re going to see a whole bunch of motions , Amy , much as we saw in the first day , where Democrats tried to bring forth motions to hear witnesses again , to have more testimony , to have more evidence .
And I think , as you just said , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It looks as though they just don ’ t have the four votes they need to proceed .
Maybe we ’ ll be surprised .
But if that ’ s the case , it will be a lot of skirmishing about procedure .
And the plan is , I think , to go to closing arguments .
And then , probably as late as 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning , late tonight , there will be a final vote to end this whole thing .
People could wake up this time tomorrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : So , explain how this all goes down .
I mean , even as we speak , we may hear what Senator Murkowski of Alaska has decided to do , whether she wants to call witnesses .
Romney has said yes — we ’ re here in Utah — the junior senator from Utah .
And Susan Collins , who ’ s in a very close race in Maine , has said she wants to have witnesses .
Then there was Lamar Alexander .
And I want to read some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement is .
He wrote , “ The question then is not whether the president did it , but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did .
I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday , ” he said .
So , he actually said President Trump was wrong in what he did , but it didn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affects Murkowski .
Of course , there are Democrats , like Joe Manchin , who could split with the Democrats and vote with the Republicans on this .
But talk about this .
And then , you are a longtime Chief Justice John Roberts watcher .
If they do tie , what does this mean ?
Chief Justice Roberts would be the tiebreaker , but he doesn ’ t have to be .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Well , just as to the first point , I think the most interesting thing to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is there are two things that he did .
One , that ’ s astonishing , is he essentially said , a week ago we were all saying this didn ’ t happen , it couldn ’ t have happened , there was no quid pro quo ; now we ’ re all conceding it happened , but it ’ s not bad .
And I just think it ’ s really important to see how the marker has shifted , that it seems that a week ago we were arguing the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen , maybe it didn ’ t happen the way it ’ s alleged .
With Bolton ’ s new allegations , I think everybody now stipulates it happened , it was really bad .
And so , what we ’ ve seen — and this shift is profound , Amy — Alan Dershowitz getting up and saying , “ Well , it ’ s OK , presidents do it all the time .
As long as the president wanted to influence the election because he believed it was in the good of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfectly fine.
” And that ’ s — you know , Republicans in the Senate fell in line .
So I just want to be super clear : What just happened was defining impeachability down .
It is almost impossible now to meet the standard where they ’ ve set the bar .
And that is really a change that happened in the blink of an eye .
Just as to your other point about Lamar Alexander , it ’ s an amazing abdication of senatorial responsibility to say , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know what happened , but let the people decide.
” I mean , there ’ s no point in having a Senate or a trial if you don ’ t step up right now .
As to the question of John Roberts , I think you and I have had this conversation a few times in the last few weeks .
John Roberts has one preeminent , predominant interest , and that is not getting involved .
He does not want the sort of stink of politics to be on him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last couple of days by just sort of figuratively and literally rising above it .
I think anyone who believes that he is going to throw in and be the guy who decided a fundamental question in this impeachment trial just is not watching John Roberts .
So , if he decides — and it has happened historically .
In 1868 , Chief Justice Salmon Chase did break some ties when he presided over Andrew Johnson ’ s impeachment .
I don ’ t think John Roberts is a chief justice in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to very , very much do everything he can not to be involved .
And if it comes to this question of do you cast the tiebreaking vote , I think he will say , “ I ’ m out , ” and leave it to the Senate , in which case there is no conviction .
AMY GOODMAN : Right , because a tie would mean that President Trump is acquitted .
But wouldn ’ t that be chief justice weighing in in a very big way , because he knows this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a fundamental question in this moment .
Is neutrality neutral ?
And of course it ’ s not neutral .
He would be throwing in his lot with the Republicans .
But I think that he would also be able to have a kind of plausible deniability , Amy .
He ’ d be able to say , you know , “ I did nothing .
I didn ’ t insert myself in .
I let the procedure go as it needed to go.
” And I think he would claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s been a lot of good op-eds this week by law professors saying , “ Look , the Constitution says he shall preside .
And that means , you know , when the vice president presides over the Senate , he has a real role in breaking ties .
He has an absolute nonceremonial role.
” So I think that ’ s being urged on John Roberts .
But I think that , very , very much clear to me , that what he cares about , in first thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night , is that the courts be above this , that the courts not be dragged into this .
Senator Elizabeth Warren tried to drag him into it with a question yesterday , and you could just see him bristle .
He does not want to be told that this is his show .
AMY GOODMAN : Oh , let ’ s go to this .
Let ’ s go to this moment , when Chief Justice John Roberts read a question submitted by the presidential candidate Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a response from Democratic Congressmember Adam Schiff , of course , the head of the Intelligence Committee , the chief House manager .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Yeah , I mean , there ’ s a part of me , a small part of me , having just said that being neutral is not neutral , that my heart does go out to the chief justice .
If you read his State of the Judiciary speech that went down right before New Year ’ s , it is clear he feels as though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the public doesn ’ t believe that they are legitimate , that the public believes that they are political and that they are driven entirely by sort of craven political motives .
And that ’ s killing him .
It ’ s why , last year , when Donald Trump went after , quote , “ Obama judges , ” for the first time , the chief justice really called him out and said , “ No , no , no , no .
We are not Obama judges and Bush judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think there is this anxiety .
And you have to kind of concede that it is an anxiety for him , that is , “ I have to bolster the reputation of the entire Article III judiciary because Donald Trump is trying to drag it down.
” And that , I think , is why Adam Schiff was at pains to say , “ No , no , Mr. Chief Justice , we have ultimate faith in you.
” But I think the larger problem is , if , in a sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Lamar Alexander ’ s statement , which is to say , you know , “ I have no role to play here .
I guess the people should decide .
The process is a neutral adjudicatory process in which nobody apparently wants to hear witnesses , nobody apparently wants to step forward and make a decision , ” that is a decision to put a thumb on the scale for Mitch McConnell ’ s whole sort of show trial here .
And so , you can at the same time kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting his hands dirty here , and also just , I think , recognize that history will probably remember , if it comes down to these three votes and John Roberts as tiebreaker , that he , in deciding not to decide , did not necessarily do the integrity of the judicial branch or of this , quote-unquote , “ trial ” in the Senate any favors .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to also go to another moment , Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declining to read a question submitted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question included the name of a person some speculate is the CIA whistleblower whose complaint catalyzed the impeachment inquiry .
This is the moment .
AMY GOODMAN : On Thursday , Senator Paul tweeted , quote , “ My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
” Dahlia Lithwick , take it from there .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Yeah , I think this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of at least Democrats have had of the chief justice .
Amy , he did absolutely the right thing .
He refused to name the whistleblower in Senator Rand Paul ’ s letter .
He declined to do something that — we just don ’ t out whistleblowers .
In some contexts , it ’ s a felony .
But then Rand Paul just got up , left the chamber , read the statement , named the whistleblower , went ahead and did on television the thing that John Roberts had declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the decorous chamber .
And this is another of many examples where I think there was some sense that the John Roberts who called out — if you remember , on the first night of the trial , called out both sides for inappropriate language , for being overtly destructive and really , in his view , unfortunately partisan .
He has just stood back and let senators amble around , leave the chamber .
There have been moments where half of them weren ’ t there , standing in the back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take phone calls , doing interviews in the hallways .
And he has done nothing to constrain really unseemly behavior that has happened throughout the trial .
And I think that that has been a criticism of him .
For him to say , “ I won ’ t read the name of the whistleblower , ” but then Rand Paul ducks out and does it on television , not clear that in reality it made a huge difference .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Dahlia Lithwick , we want to thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior editor at Slate.com , where she ’ s the senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter .
As usual , democracynow.org , we will live-stream all the proceedings , from gavel to gavel .
They begin again today at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time .
So tune in at democracynow.org .
When we come back , Disclosure , a groundbreaking film here at the Sundance Film Festival , examining more than a century of trans representation on screen .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The Republican-led Senate appears poised to acquit President Trump as early as today in just the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. On Thursday night, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee announced he would vote against calling witnesses. Alexander said it was inappropriate for Trump to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, but he went on to say, quote, “There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” unquote. Democrats need four Republican senators to support calling for witnesses, but it appears they’ll fall short.
Democrats were hoping to hear testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton. In a forthcoming book, Bolton has reportedly written that Trump personally told him he wanted to maintain a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Republican Senators Susan Collins and Mitt Romney have said they will vote yes today on witnesses. If Lisa Murkowski of Alaska votes with them, it will result in a 50-50 tie, meaning no witnesses will be called, unless Chief Justice John Roberts casts a tiebreaking vote, which is seen as highly unlikely. If the vote to call witnesses fails, the Republican leadership is expected to move quickly to end the trial and vote to acquit the president.
Hours before he made his announcement, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, along with Lisa Murkowski, submitted a question during the Senate trial, asking if Bolton’s testimony would even matter, because Trump’s legal defense team claims the allegations, even if true, don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Adam Schiff both responded. This is Philbin.
PATRICK PHILBIN: There was no quid pro quo. There was no — and there is no evidence to show that. There was not that sort of linkage that the House managers have suggested. But let me answer the question directly, which I understand to be, assuming for the sake of argument that Ambassador Bolton would come and testify the way The New York Times article alleges the way his book describes the conversation, then it is correct that even if that happened, even if he gave that testimony, the articles of impeachment still wouldn’t rise to an impeachable offense.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: We know why they don’t want John Bolton to testify. It’s not because we don’t really know what happened here. They just don’t want the American people to hear it in all of its ugly graphic detail.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the impeachment trial, we’re joined by Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor at Slate.com, where she is the senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter.
Dahlia, welcome back to Democracy Now! So, this is a crucial day. Explain what’s going to happen today, what we know and what we don’t know.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I think we’re going to see a whole bunch of motions, Amy, much as we saw in the first day, where Democrats tried to bring forth motions to hear witnesses again, to have more testimony, to have more evidence. And I think, as you just said, they are likely to be roundly defeated. It looks as though they just don’t have the four votes they need to proceed. Maybe we’ll be surprised. But if that’s the case, it will be a lot of skirmishing about procedure. And the plan is, I think, to go to closing arguments. And then, probably as late as 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, late tonight, there will be a final vote to end this whole thing. People could wake up this time tomorrow, and it was all over.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain how this all goes down. I mean, even as we speak, we may hear what Senator Murkowski of Alaska has decided to do, whether she wants to call witnesses. Romney has said yes — we’re here in Utah — the junior senator from Utah. And Susan Collins, who’s in a very close race in Maine, has said she wants to have witnesses.
Then there was Lamar Alexander. And I want to read some of what Senator Lamar Alexander’s statement is. He wrote, “The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday,” he said. So, he actually said President Trump was wrong in what he did, but it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. We’ll see how that affects Murkowski.
Of course, there are Democrats, like Joe Manchin, who could split with the Democrats and vote with the Republicans on this. But talk about this. And then, you are a longtime Chief Justice John Roberts watcher. If they do tie, what does this mean? Chief Justice Roberts would be the tiebreaker, but he doesn’t have to be.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Well, just as to the first point, I think the most interesting thing to me about Senator Alexander’s move there is there are two things that he did. One, that’s astonishing, is he essentially said, a week ago we were all saying this didn’t happen, it couldn’t have happened, there was no quid pro quo; now we’re all conceding it happened, but it’s not bad. And I just think it’s really important to see how the marker has shifted, that it seems that a week ago we were arguing the facts: Maybe the facts didn’t happen, maybe it didn’t happen the way it’s alleged. With Bolton’s new allegations, I think everybody now stipulates it happened, it was really bad. And so, what we’ve seen — and this shift is profound, Amy — Alan Dershowitz getting up and saying, “Well, it’s OK, presidents do it all the time. As long as the president wanted to influence the election because he believed it was in the good of the country, then it’s perfectly fine.” And that’s — you know, Republicans in the Senate fell in line. So I just want to be super clear: What just happened was defining impeachability down. It is almost impossible now to meet the standard where they’ve set the bar. And that is really a change that happened in the blink of an eye.
Just as to your other point about Lamar Alexander, it’s an amazing abdication of senatorial responsibility to say, you know, shruggy emoji, “We don’t know what happened, but let the people decide.” I mean, there’s no point in having a Senate or a trial if you don’t step up right now.
As to the question of John Roberts, I think you and I have had this conversation a few times in the last few weeks. John Roberts has one preeminent, predominant interest, and that is not getting involved. He does not want the sort of stink of politics to be on him. He has very masterfully gotten through these last couple of days by just sort of figuratively and literally rising above it. I think anyone who believes that he is going to throw in and be the guy who decided a fundamental question in this impeachment trial just is not watching John Roberts. So, if he decides — and it has happened historically. In 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase did break some ties when he presided over Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. I don’t think John Roberts is a chief justice in that model. I think he is going to very, very much do everything he can not to be involved. And if it comes to this question of do you cast the tiebreaking vote, I think he will say, “I’m out,” and leave it to the Senate, in which case there is no conviction.
AMY GOODMAN: Right, because a tie would mean that President Trump is acquitted. But wouldn’t that be chief justice weighing in in a very big way, because he knows this?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: It’s such a fundamental question in this moment. Is neutrality neutral? And of course it’s not neutral. He would be throwing in his lot with the Republicans. But I think that he would also be able to have a kind of plausible deniability, Amy. He’d be able to say, you know, “I did nothing. I didn’t insert myself in. I let the procedure go as it needed to go.” And I think he would claim that he really only had a ceremonial role. There’s been a lot of good op-eds this week by law professors saying, “Look, the Constitution says he shall preside. And that means, you know, when the vice president presides over the Senate, he has a real role in breaking ties. He has an absolute nonceremonial role.” So I think that’s being urged on John Roberts. But I think that, very, very much clear to me, that what he cares about, in first thing in the morning and last thing at night, is that the courts be above this, that the courts not be dragged into this. Senator Elizabeth Warren tried to drag him into it with a question yesterday, and you could just see him bristle. He does not want to be told that this is his show.
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, let’s go to this. Let’s go to this moment, when Chief Justice John Roberts read a question submitted by the presidential candidate Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. This is Roberts, followed by a response from Democratic Congressmember Adam Schiff, of course, the head of the Intelligence Committee, the chief House manager.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?”
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice. I think the chief justice has presided admirably. … But it does not reflect well on any of us if we are afraid of what the evidence holds, if this will be the first trial in America where the defendant says at the beginning of the trial, “If the prosecution case is so good, why don’t they prove it without any witnesses?” That’s not a model we can hold up with pride to the rest of the world. And, yes, Senator, I think that will feed cynicism about this institution.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dahlia Lithwick, explain.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Yeah, I mean, there’s a part of me, a small part of me, having just said that being neutral is not neutral, that my heart does go out to the chief justice. If you read his State of the Judiciary speech that went down right before New Year’s, it is clear he feels as though the courts are facing this existential crisis, that the public doesn’t believe that they are legitimate, that the public believes that they are political and that they are driven entirely by sort of craven political motives. And that’s killing him. It’s why, last year, when Donald Trump went after, quote, “Obama judges,” for the first time, the chief justice really called him out and said, “No, no, no, no. We are not Obama judges and Bush judges. We are judges.” So I think there is this anxiety. And you have to kind of concede that it is an anxiety for him, that is, “I have to bolster the reputation of the entire Article III judiciary because Donald Trump is trying to drag it down.” And that, I think, is why Adam Schiff was at pains to say, “No, no, Mr. Chief Justice, we have ultimate faith in you.”
But I think the larger problem is, if, in a sense, John Roberts does what you just heard in Lamar Alexander’s statement, which is to say, you know, “I have no role to play here. I guess the people should decide. The process is a neutral adjudicatory process in which nobody apparently wants to hear witnesses, nobody apparently wants to step forward and make a decision,” that is a decision to put a thumb on the scale for Mitch McConnell’s whole sort of show trial here. And so, you can at the same time kind of empathize with the anxiety he feels about getting his hands dirty here, and also just, I think, recognize that history will probably remember, if it comes down to these three votes and John Roberts as tiebreaker, that he, in deciding not to decide, did not necessarily do the integrity of the judicial branch or of this, quote-unquote, “trial” in the Senate any favors.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to also go to another moment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declining to read a question submitted by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. The question included the name of a person some speculate is the CIA whistleblower whose complaint catalyzed the impeachment inquiry. This is the moment.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.
AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, Senator Paul tweeted, quote, “My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.” Dahlia Lithwick, take it from there.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Yeah, I think this goes to an important criticism that a lot of at least Democrats have had of the chief justice. Amy, he did absolutely the right thing. He refused to name the whistleblower in Senator Rand Paul’s letter. He declined to do something that — we just don’t out whistleblowers. In some contexts, it’s a felony. But then Rand Paul just got up, left the chamber, read the statement, named the whistleblower, went ahead and did on television the thing that John Roberts had declined to do sort of in real time in the decorous chamber.
And this is another of many examples where I think there was some sense that the John Roberts who called out — if you remember, on the first night of the trial, called out both sides for inappropriate language, for being overtly destructive and really, in his view, unfortunately partisan. He has just stood back and let senators amble around, leave the chamber. There have been moments where half of them weren’t there, standing in the back talking, ducking into the cloakroom to take phone calls, doing interviews in the hallways. And he has done nothing to constrain really unseemly behavior that has happened throughout the trial. And I think that that has been a criticism of him. For him to say, “I won’t read the name of the whistleblower,” but then Rand Paul ducks out and does it on television, not clear that in reality it made a huge difference.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dahlia Lithwick, we want to thank you so much for being with us, senior editor at Slate.com, where she’s the senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter.
As usual, democracynow.org, we will live-stream all the proceedings, from gavel to gavel. They begin again today at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. So tune in at democracynow.org.
When we come back, Disclosure, a groundbreaking film here at the Sundance Film Festival, examining more than a century of trans representation on screen. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-01-31--Headlines for January 31, 2020

Headlines for January 31, 2020

Human rights groups are condemning the Mexican government for its crackdown on Central Americans who travel through Mexico en route @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Mexico has deported over 2,000 Central Americans over the last two weeks @ @ @ @ @ NGOs and faith organizations from accessing detention centers .
This is Tania Reneaum of Amnesty @ @ @ @ @ “ We are talking about the signals that are given that give clear indicators of @ @ @ @ @ not respect human rights , which also goes with the xenophobic policy of President Trump @ @ @ @ @ comes as the Trump administration says it will expand the “ Remain in Mexico ” @ @ @ @ @ , who will now be forced to await their U.S. court dates in Mexico .
@ @ @ @ @ already been subjected to the “ Remain in Mexico ” policy , where Doctors Without @ @ @ @ @ them report being victims of violence .

Human rights groups are condemning the Mexican government for its crackdown on Central Americans who travel through Mexico en route to seek asylum in the United States. Mexico has deported over 2,000 Central Americans over the last two weeks and has temporarily suspended all NGOs and faith organizations from accessing detention centers. This is Tania Reneaum of Amnesty International.
Tania Reneaum: “We are talking about the signals that are given that give clear indicators of a migrant policy that does not respect human rights, which also goes with the xenophobic policy of President Trump’s ideology.”
This comes as the Trump administration says it will expand the “Remain in Mexico” policy to Brazilian asylum seekers, who will now be forced to await their U.S. court dates in Mexico. Sixty thousand asylum seekers have already been subjected to the “Remain in Mexico” policy, where Doctors Without Borders says 80% of them report being victims of violence.


democracynow--2020-02-03--Laurie Garrett on How Trump Has Sabotaged America's Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
We end today ’ s show looking at the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak , which has already claimed the lives of at least 361 people in China .
It ’ s believed 17,000 people are now infected .
As the virus continues to spread , the United States has declared a public health emergency and is barring foreign nationals who have recently traveled to China from entering the U.S .
So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus in the U.S. A 44-year-old man in the Philippines became the first fatality of the disease outside China Saturday , and over the weekend the number of confirmed cases worldwide continued to grow in more than two dozen countries .
Most of these cases are in China .
U.S. citizens who have visited Hubei province , the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak , will be quarantined when re-entering the country .
Questions are being raised about the handling of the disease by Chinese authorities , who critics say delayed their response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The local Red Cross in Hubei has also come under fire for failing to distribute essential medical supplies to hospitals which need it most .
Meanwhile , Chinese and Asian communities in countries including France and Canada have become the target of increased racism , they say , because of the outbreak .
For more , we ’ re joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Laurie Garrett , author of several books , including Ebola : Story of an Outbreak and The Coming Plague : Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collapse of Global Public Health .
Her latest piece for Foreign Policy is headlined “ Trump Has Sabotaged America ’ s Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic.
” Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Laurie .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
Explain what you found .
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , the Trump administration , from the moment it came in , wanted to disband programs that were signature programs of the Obama administration .
One of them had to do with global health security in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which , as you know , was a very deadly outcome and involved three countries .
The United States played a big role , including having our military on site in Liberia in support .
And the Trump administration pretty much disbanded the entire program , got rid of the National Security Council ’ s special pandemic response unit , got rid of the equivalent in the Department of Homeland Security , cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control , and , you know , we can go down a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is specifically aiming at protecting you and me , citizens inside the country , by beefing up the hospital capacities and training of local healthcare workers and public health leaders is running out of money and will be officially shut down in May , unless something happens .
And Congress has refused to even look at it .
McConnell has never allowed it to even come up for a vote .
So , we ’ re in a situation now where we ’ re flying on fumes , with people in charge who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of epidemics , haven ’ t listened to those who really understand how to stop an epidemic .
And then , on top of it all , Pompeo , the secretary of state , seems to be — to have carte blanche to do whatever he wants .
He ’ s not consulting other agencies before acting .
And so he has basically banned , not only a travel ban on people coming from China to the United States , but he ’ s conflated our immigration policy with a travel issue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese citizen now , you can ’ t come to the United States .
Most Americans don ’ t realize they ’ ve essentially used this epidemic to stop all travel and movement .
And one of the outcomes of that , which is just incredibly nuts , is that almost all of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in the formulation of medicines in America — frankly , for the whole world — come from China .
And so , we will soon run out of drugs for everything .
Has nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to run out of diabetes drugs and heart disease drugs and cancer drugs and all of that , many of which were already in short supply , because the ingredients our pharmaceutical industry uses all come from China .
AMY GOODMAN : And what ’ s going to happen to all of those drugs being made in China ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Who knows ?
There ’ s no answer .
There ’ s no solution .
And now the tension between the United States and China has gotten so high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring that America is responsible for a global xenophobic attack against China , in no uncertain terms .
It ’ s very clear that inside China it ’ s already beginning to play as “ America is our enemy .
America is making it worse for us.
” AMY GOODMAN : What do you think of , on Thursday , the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross appearing to welcome the coronavirus as a boost to the U.S. job market , saying in a Fox News interview that it would , quote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North America ” ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , that was an ill-advised comment , to say the least .
And , look , we ’ re going to have other comments of a similar tone .
We , right now here in New York City , have three suspected cases of this virus .
All involve individuals who had recently been in China .
All over the United States , we ’ re seeing cases of individuals that have been in China , and many of them are ethnic Chinese .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response , a kind of xenophobia , that is always in America just , you know , this close to the surface .
Give it a little scratch , and , boom , out comes the racism .
So , I think we ’ re in very dangerous territory right now , where we need not only infrastructure guidance , but moral guidance , in how to respond to a frightening epidemic .
AMY GOODMAN : Apparently , as part of the restrictions now in the U.S. , some flights are being rerouted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health screenings .
LAURIE GARRETT : Yes .
You know , this is a playbook that follows what happened in 2009 with the H1N1 swine flu when it went global .
Everybody goes to shutting down their airports , as if that matters , as if that works .
You know , one of the things that ’ s really a problem with this virus , that wasn ’ t with SARS , even though they ’ re very , very close genetically — it ’ s a crucial biological difference — AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What year was that ?
LAURIE GARRETT : 2003 .
And I was in the middle of that epidemic in China throughout , so I know what I ’ m speaking of .
And in that particular epidemic , we were fortunate that people were really only contagious when they had a high fever .
And so , this thing you see all over China now of these fever guns pointing at people ’ s heads to see do you have a fever , and , if you do , sending you off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used all over the world .
So now we set up these fever portals that you walk through at airports .
And — LAURIE GARRETT : Detect your temperature .
And all over the world now people have erected them in their airports .
But the problem is , we now know this virus can spread before you have any symptoms at all .
And so the person carrying the virus might not have a fever .
So we ’ re setting up a whole false sense of defense .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Laurie .
Explain what is happening in China right now .
In fact , explain what the coronavirus is and then what we are seeing .
What ?
Over 360 deaths , 17,000 people , overwhelmingly it ’ s China that ’ s being hit the hardest .
LAURIE GARRETT : Yes .
A coronavirus is called corona because it has spikes around the outside , which , when you look at it through a microscope , kind of looks like a crown .
Corona , crown .
But that has nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it looks like .
It ’ s a class of viruses that includes most of your common colds .
So , actually , everybody ’ s quite familiar with coronaviruses ; they just don ’ t know it .
And all the dangerous coronaviruses that we have seen in recent years , the big ones being the current one , SARS and MERS , the Middle East respiratory syndrome , which is still circulating in Saudi Arabia , all of them are originally bat viruses .
Now , not vampire bats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressures we ’ re putting on bat habitats , particularly rainforests , bats are more and more going into areas where there ’ s human occupation , even though they ’ re very shy creatures .
Somewhere in the chain of wildlife hunting and transport and then sale of live animals in wet markets in China , bats come in contact with some other intermediary species .
In the case of Saudi Arabia , it ’ s camels .
In the case of SARS , it was the civet , which is eaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off respiratory infections , and was the carrier that transmitted to humans .
And in the case of this disease , we don ’ t yet know what species in the wet market was the intermediary animal , which is very scary because it means that species , still in sale and circulation elsewhere in Asia , may be spreading the virus to human beings .
Meanwhile , once it ’ s jumped to human beings , what we ’ re looking at is a virus that causes really severe pneumonia .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we don ’ t have any treatment for it except to put you on oxygen intensive care treatment to help you fight your own pneumonia .
Since it ’ s a viral pneumonia , of course , antibiotics can not be used , should not used .
LAURIE GARRETT : There is no vaccine .
We don ’ t have a vaccine for any of the coronaviruses .
And there is a lot of evidence that as people are infected for a while , they make antibodies against the virus .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most cases , but the antibodies are not lasting , so they don ’ t remain immune over time , which bodes ill for developing an effective vaccine .
AMY GOODMAN : So , what ’ s happening with people ?
How did China deal with it ?
How are they dealing with it ?
What ’ s happening in Wuhan ?
LAURIE GARRETT : The way China has responded is to draw on its 2003 SARS playbook , because — and the similarities are just enormous from what I saw with SARS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wasn ’ t really detected until cases fled across the border into Hong Kong , and suddenly Hong Kong ’ s hospitals were being filled with these mysterious cases .
But China was denying that it was a mainland China problem , denying that it had gone beyond the original outbreak zone down in Guangzhou and Shenzhen , and covered up the existence of the virus in Beijing , where it was being handled secretly by the military and cases were being put in military hospitals .
When they finally had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem , ” people fled .
And I was there as an eyewitness .
They fled by the tens of thousands from Beijing , by every means possible .
And overnight , it was an all-nation epidemic .
So the only way to control it was to say everybody gets a fever check at every highway point , every entry to every public building — AMY GOODMAN : We have 10 seconds for this Part 1 .
LAURIE GARRETT : — and so on .
And they ’ re now just replicating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , barricades , blocking off cities , blocking off transport .
AMY GOODMAN : In Part 2 , and we ’ ll post it at democracynow.org , what can people do about it .
Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Laurie Garrett .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks so much for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. We end today’s show looking at the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, which has already claimed the lives of at least 361 people in China. It’s believed 17,000 people are now infected. As the virus continues to spread, the United States has declared a public health emergency and is barring foreign nationals who have recently traveled to China from entering the U.S. So far, there are 11 confirmed cases of the virus in the U.S. A 44-year-old man in the Philippines became the first fatality of the disease outside China Saturday, and over the weekend the number of confirmed cases worldwide continued to grow in more than two dozen countries. Most of these cases are in China. U.S. citizens who have visited Hubei province, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, will be quarantined when re-entering the country.
Questions are being raised about the handling of the disease by Chinese authorities, who critics say delayed their response and downplayed the severity of the problem. The local Red Cross in Hubei has also come under fire for failing to distribute essential medical supplies to hospitals which need it most.
Meanwhile, Chinese and Asian communities in countries including France and Canada have become the target of increased racism, they say, because of the outbreak.
For more, we’re joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Laurie Garrett, author of several books, including Ebola: Story of an Outbreak and The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance and Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. Her latest piece for Foreign Policy is headlined “Trump Has Sabotaged America’s Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic.”
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Laurie. It’s great to have you with us. Explain what you found.
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, the Trump administration, from the moment it came in, wanted to disband programs that were signature programs of the Obama administration. One of them had to do with global health security in response to the 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, which, as you know, was a very deadly outcome and involved three countries. The United States played a big role, including having our military on site in Liberia in support. And the Trump administration pretty much disbanded the entire program, got rid of the National Security Council’s special pandemic response unit, got rid of the equivalent in the Department of Homeland Security, cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control, and, you know, we can go down a huge list. Even a program that is specifically aiming at protecting you and me, citizens inside the country, by beefing up the hospital capacities and training of local healthcare workers and public health leaders is running out of money and will be officially shut down in May, unless something happens. And Congress has refused to even look at it. McConnell has never allowed it to even come up for a vote. So, we’re in a situation now where we’re flying on fumes, with people in charge who have never really been in the middle of epidemics, haven’t listened to those who really understand how to stop an epidemic.
And then, on top of it all, Pompeo, the secretary of state, seems to be — to have carte blanche to do whatever he wants. He’s not consulting other agencies before acting. And so he has basically banned, not only a travel ban on people coming from China to the United States, but he’s conflated our immigration policy with a travel issue, so that if you’re a Chinese citizen now, you can’t come to the United States. Most Americans don’t realize they’ve essentially used this epidemic to stop all travel and movement. And one of the outcomes of that, which is just incredibly nuts, is that almost all of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in the formulation of medicines in America — frankly, for the whole world — come from China. And so, we will soon run out of drugs for everything. Has nothing to do with the epidemic. We’re going to run out of diabetes drugs and heart disease drugs and cancer drugs and all of that, many of which were already in short supply, because the ingredients our pharmaceutical industry uses all come from China.
AMY GOODMAN: And what’s going to happen to all of those drugs being made in China?
LAURIE GARRETT: Who knows? There’s no answer. There’s no solution. And now the tension between the United States and China has gotten so high that the Foreign Ministry issued statements today declaring that America is responsible for a global xenophobic attack against China, in no uncertain terms. It’s very clear that inside China it’s already beginning to play as “America is our enemy. America is making it worse for us.”
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of, on Thursday, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross appearing to welcome the coronavirus as a boost to the U.S. job market, saying in a Fox News interview that it would, quote, “accelerate the return of jobs to North America”?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, that was an ill-advised comment, to say the least. And, look, we’re going to have other comments of a similar tone. We, right now here in New York City, have three suspected cases of this virus. All involve individuals who had recently been in China. All over the United States, we’re seeing cases of individuals that have been in China, and many of them are ethnic Chinese. So you may feed a kind of racial response, a kind of xenophobia, that is always in America just, you know, this close to the surface. Give it a little scratch, and, boom, out comes the racism. So, I think we’re in very dangerous territory right now, where we need not only infrastructure guidance, but moral guidance, in how to respond to a frightening epidemic.
AMY GOODMAN: Apparently, as part of the restrictions now in the U.S., some flights are being rerouted to specific airports where passengers receive advanced health screenings.
LAURIE GARRETT: Yes. You know, this is a playbook that follows what happened in 2009 with the H1N1 swine flu when it went global. Everybody goes to shutting down their airports, as if that matters, as if that works. You know, one of the things that’s really a problem with this virus, that wasn’t with SARS, even though they’re very, very close genetically — it’s a crucial biological difference —
AMY GOODMAN: The SARS virus from? What year was that?
LAURIE GARRETT: 2003. And I was in the middle of that epidemic in China throughout, so I know what I’m speaking of. And in that particular epidemic, we were fortunate that people were really only contagious when they had a high fever. And so, this thing you see all over China now of these fever guns pointing at people’s heads to see do you have a fever, and, if you do, sending you off to quarantine, has become the method used all over the world. So now we set up these fever portals that you walk through at airports. And —
AMY GOODMAN: That detect your temperature?
LAURIE GARRETT: Detect your temperature. And all over the world now people have erected them in their airports. But the problem is, we now know this virus can spread before you have any symptoms at all. And so the person carrying the virus might not have a fever. So we’re setting up a whole false sense of defense.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s go back, Laurie. Explain what is happening in China right now. In fact, explain what the coronavirus is and then what we are seeing. What? Over 360 deaths, 17,000 people, overwhelmingly it’s China that’s being hit the hardest.
LAURIE GARRETT: Yes. A coronavirus is called corona because it has spikes around the outside, which, when you look at it through a microscope, kind of looks like a crown. Corona, crown. But that has nothing to do with its biology, just what it looks like. It’s a class of viruses that includes most of your common colds. So, actually, everybody’s quite familiar with coronaviruses; they just don’t know it.
And all the dangerous coronaviruses that we have seen in recent years, the big ones being the current one, SARS and MERS, the Middle East respiratory syndrome, which is still circulating in Saudi Arabia, all of them are originally bat viruses. Now, not vampire bats, but fruit bats. And because of pressures we’re putting on bat habitats, particularly rainforests, bats are more and more going into areas where there’s human occupation, even though they’re very shy creatures. Somewhere in the chain of wildlife hunting and transport and then sale of live animals in wet markets in China, bats come in contact with some other intermediary species. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it’s camels. In the case of SARS, it was the civet, which is eaten in winter, ironically, to ward off respiratory infections, and was the carrier that transmitted to humans. And in the case of this disease, we don’t yet know what species in the wet market was the intermediary animal, which is very scary because it means that species, still in sale and circulation elsewhere in Asia, may be spreading the virus to human beings.
Meanwhile, once it’s jumped to human beings, what we’re looking at is a virus that causes really severe pneumonia. That’s your top dangerous symptom. And we don’t have any treatment for it except to put you on oxygen intensive care treatment to help you fight your own pneumonia. Since it’s a viral pneumonia, of course, antibiotics cannot be used, should not used.
AMY GOODMAN: What about a vaccine?
LAURIE GARRETT: There is no vaccine. We don’t have a vaccine for any of the coronaviruses. And there is a lot of evidence that as people are infected for a while, they make antibodies against the virus. They do manage to eventually clear it in most cases, but the antibodies are not lasting, so they don’t remain immune over time, which bodes ill for developing an effective vaccine.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what’s happening with people? How did China deal with it? How are they dealing with it? What’s happening in Wuhan?
LAURIE GARRETT: The way China has responded is to draw on its 2003 SARS playbook, because — and the similarities are just enormous from what I saw with SARS, because SARS started in November 2002, wasn’t really detected until cases fled across the border into Hong Kong, and suddenly Hong Kong’s hospitals were being filled with these mysterious cases. But China was denying that it was a mainland China problem, denying that it had gone beyond the original outbreak zone down in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, and covered up the existence of the virus in Beijing, where it was being handled secretly by the military and cases were being put in military hospitals. When they finally had to admit, “Yes, we have a problem,” people fled. And I was there as an eyewitness. They fled by the tens of thousands from Beijing, by every means possible. And overnight, it was an all-nation epidemic. So the only way to control it was to say everybody gets a fever check at every highway point, every entry to every public building —
AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds for this Part 1.
LAURIE GARRETT: — and so on. And they’re now just replicating the same thing, building instant hospitals, barricades, blocking off cities, blocking off transport.
AMY GOODMAN: In Part 2, and we’ll post it at democracynow.org, what can people do about it. Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Laurie Garrett. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.