Skip to main content

tv   Democracy Now  LINKTV  July 13, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PDT

8:00 am
07/11/17 07/11/17 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! lula is innocent. he is not the owner of that residence. he never lived in that residence. he nevever frequented that residence. it is a case of great injustice. amy: former brarazilian presidet luiz inacio lula d da silva is convicted on cororruption chargs and sentenced to nine and a half years in prison. will this end his attempt to become president again? we will go to rio de janiero to speak with pulitzer prize
8:01 am
winning journalist glenn greenwald. plus we speakak with an greenwad about the latest allegations of russia meddling in the 2016 election a and trump's recentnt memeeting with putinin. >pres. trump: positive thing. putin is going to what russia and trump is going to want united states. sometimes you won't get along and sometimes you will. but we had a good meeting. amy: and we will look at how the intercept's parent company first look media is helping support the e legal defense for alleged nasa whistleblower reality winner. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. in brazil, former president luiz inacio lula a da silva was convicted on corruption charges wednesday and sentenced to nine and a half years in prison. he will remain free on appeal.
8:02 am
lula was the frontrunner in the 2018 presidential elections and is widely considered one of brazil's most popular political figures. the sentencing of lula comes a year after his successor president dilma rousseff, also , of the workers party, was impeached by the brazilian senate in a move many have denounced as a coup. lula has been accused of a masterminding a corruption scheme at the state-run oil company petrobras. prosecutors allege latin america's biggest construction firm spent about refurbishing a $1.1 billion beachside apartment for lula and his wife in exchange for public contracts. $1.1 million. a top ally of lula, paulo okamotto, on wednesday denounced the charges. >> lula is innocent. he is not the owner of that residence. he never asked for that
8:03 am
residence. you never lived in that residence. he never frequented that residence. it really is a case o of great injustice. amy: presidentnt trump arrived n paris, france come today for the talkss with the french president macron on best deal day. ououtside the talks, thousands f protesters planned to create with their calling a no-trump zone amidst a massive secured operation. trump's visit comes as the white house reels from this week's revelations that donald trump, jr. openly embraced a an efforty the russian government to pedal information incriminating hillary clinton in an attempt to help trump when the election. meanwhile, democratic congress member brad sherman of california introduced an article wednesday of impeachment against donald trump, accusing the president of obstructining juste in the fbi's probe into russia's interference in the 2016 election. this is congreressman sherman spspeaking with los angeles station kabc. >> this is not a political matttter.
8:04 am
this is a matter o of consencce. we do knknow thehere is obstrucn of justice. we do know this presidency is ignorant, incomompetent, anand n full's of -- i impulsive. behavior ofof the white house e changes, i think w we wl see e a new president. not anytime soon, but before the end of the four years. amy: elslsewhere on capitol hil, president trump's pick to replace fired fbi director james comey, christopher wray, told the senate judiciary committee wednesday he will act independently from the white house if confirmed. christopher wray said no one had asked him for a loyalty oath as trump reportedly asked me to give. south carolina republican senator lindsey graham asked wray about trump's claim on twitter wednesday that special counsel robert mueller's investigation into ties between russia and trump's associates is "the greatest witch hunt in political history." >> senator, i can't speak to the basis for those comments. my experience -- >> i am asking you if the future
8:05 am
fbi director. do you consider this a witch hunt? >> i do not consider director mueller to be on a which time. amy: christopher wray is a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor who served as assistant attorney general under george w. bush from 2003 to 2005, at a time when the justice department's office of legal counsel signed off on the use of torture against detainees in cia and military custody. at wednesday's confirmation hearing, illinois senator dick durbin asked wray whether he approved a memo that retain a policy by then-deputy attorney general jay bybee approving of waterboarding and other forms sf torture. >> in a footnote on the memo can indicate under the new analysis, all of the tortured techniniques that were e approved under the bybee, would still be legal under the new memo. in other words, nothing changed. it says it expressly have the approval of your division. do you recall reviewing and
8:06 am
approving that memo? >> i do nonot recall approving - reviewing and approving that memo. amy: after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, christopher wray played a key role in the fbi penttbomb investigation, which say more than 750 mostly arab or muslim men rounded up and detainened under often-harsh conditions. senate republican leaders are set to unveil a revised healthcare bill totoday after their previous effort to repeal and replace the affordable care act failed to win enough support from their own party. the latest effort comes amid questions about whether republicans have the 50 votes needed to clear a procedural hurdle to evenen begin debating the measure. thisis is presidt trump speaking wednesday with right-wing televangelist pat robertson. pres. trump: for years, they've been talking about repeal, replace. i think they passed it 61 times, repeal and replace. but that did not mean anything because you had the minority, the republicans, they did not
8:07 am
have the majority so it was not going to get to the president. if it everer did, obama wawasn't going to sign it. now we have a president that is waiting to sign it. i have pen in hand. amy: the latest senate bill would retain more than $700 billion in cuts to medicaid d by 2026 and is modeled on a previous effort that would cause 22 million people to lose their health insurance over the next decade. tenants and housing rights activists converged wednesday on washington, d.c., to president trump's proposed $7.4 billion in cuts to hud, the department of housing and urban development, which oversees public housing in the united states. among those at the march was massachusetts democratic senator elizabeth warren. >> we believe that hard-working people should not be kicked out of their homes so that big banks and the billionaires connect more in profits. and we will fight back. [applause]
8:08 am
this is about who we are as a country and who we are as a people. amy: the center on budget and policy priorities estimates trump's budget proposal would end vouchers for about 250,000 households. in breaking news -- ice breaking, that is -- one of the biggest icebergs ever recorded broke away from the larsen c ice shelf in antarctica wednesday in the latetest sigign that climate change w will drive sea levels o rise dramamatically over the coming decades. the iceberg weighs an estimated 1 trillion tons and is roughly the size of delaware. geophysicist edward king of the british antarctic survey said the iceberg itself won't contribute to sea level rise, but that if the entire ice shelf breaks apart, antarctica's glaciers could soon bebegin spilling into the ocean. >> if you l look at all o of the in antarctica, y you're t talkig about many meters of sea level rise, potential.
8:09 am
but wewe're not talking tomorro. we are not talalking n next yea. it will l a processss that will tatake t time. but t we think that in places, that process has started. amy: in yemen, the united nations is reversing plans to begin a cholera vaccination program m because the u.s.-back, saudi-led bombing campaign has devastated yemen's health system and made it too dangerous for medical workers to carry out their mission. the disclosure came as the number of cholera cases in yemen topped 313,000, with more than 1700 deaths from the water-borne disease. at the u.n. seririty councncil wednesday, top u.n. officials blasted saudi i arabia and its allies foror yemen's humanitarin catastrophe. this is u.n. aid chief stephen o'brien. >> 7 million people, including 2.3 million malnourished children of whom 500,000 are severely malnourished under the age i, are on the cusp of famine. disease, at risk
8:10 am
of a slow and painful death. mr. president, this cholera scandal is entirely man-made by the conflicting parties and those beyond yemen's borders who are leading, supplying, fighting, and perpetuating the here and the fighting. amy: meanwhile, rex tillersrson held talks wedednesday with memembers of the saudidi royalal family, includining crown prince mohammmmed bin salman, the saudi defense minister and architect and defense minister and architect of the war in yemen. their meeting came just weeks after president trump signed a series of arms deals with saudi arabia totaling a record $110 billion. this is secretary tillerson. >> i appppreciate the joint interest that we share our two countries, our mutual interest here in terms of security, stability for the region and economic prosperity for the region as s well. it is very imporortant, strong partnership between the united states and saudi arabia. amy: tillelerson's visit came as the saudi kingdom and its gulf alallies press sananctions agait qatar. the gulf allies broke off relations with qatar in june, issuing 13 demands including an
8:11 am
end d to qatar's diplomaticicies with iran and closure ofof thel jazeera tv channel. secretary tillerson returned to qatar today for more shuttle diplomacy after meeting tuesday with the qatari emir and foreign minister. in t the gaza strip, thehe unitd nations warned this week the palestinian territory has become unlivable for its million residents due to israel's stifling blockade. this is robert piper, the u.n. humanitarian aid coordinator for the occupieded palestinian territory. >> i see this extraordinarily inhuman and unjust process of strangling g gradually 2 million civilians in gaza that really pose a threat t to nobody. acacross the board, we''re watcg de-development in slow-motion. from water to health care to employment and poverty to food insecucurity, every indicatators declining.
8:12 am
amy: hyper is talking about gaza's 2 million residents. the warning came as israeli-imposed restrictions on electricity have left gazans with barely two hours of power per day. the blackouts were supported by palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas, who saw them as a way to pressure his political rivals in hamas. meanwhile, in the occupied west bank, hundreds of palestinians attended a funeral wednesday for a young man and a teenage boy shot and killed by israeli soldiers in the jenin refugee camp. israel's military claimed the killings were in self-defense after palestinians opened fire, but camp residents say the troops were attacked only with stones and not gunfire. in iraq, newly published drone footage shows at least 100 civilians remained trapped by house-to-house fighting in west mosul this week, despite claims by iraq's military that a u.s.-backed offensive had defeated isis. the video, published by the "new york times," shows residents trapped in a narrow alleyway among ruined buildings near the tigris river, while fighting
8:13 am
reportedly raged nearby. momore drone footatage publishsy apap showed d airstrikes ripping througugh a denselely-packed neighborhood of heavily damaged buildings. thousandnds of civilians were killed during the nine-month battle in mosul and nearly 1 million residents s were forcedo flflee their homes. back in the united states, the presidential advisory commission on election integrity says it will ask states not to it send voter roll data while a lawsuit by a privacy group winds through the courts. the request for voteded data cae by the vice chair kris kobach, the kansas secretary of state who is push for the strictest voter identification laws and advocated for proof of citizenship requirement the civil rights advocates say is aimed at suppressing voter turnout. at least 46 states and the district of columbia have refused to cooperate with the commission's request for voter information, partially or in full, with many calling it a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression. in sports news, the nation's premiere women's golf
8:14 am
championship, the lpga open, tees off today at the trump national course in bedminster, new jersey. the white house wednesday would not say whether president trump might attend this weekend after he returns from france. a petition circulated by the feminist group ultraviolet garnered over 110,000 signatures calling on the lpga to move the venue. ultraviolet co-founder shaunna thomas said in a statement -- "the lpga is giving millions in revenue, free advertising and branding to trump, a racist, sexist, sexual predator. the lpga should not be rewarding trump's bigoted brand and normalize his platform and policies that degrade women and divide our country." and in malta, lawmakers voted overwhelelmingly wednesdsday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the mediterranean island nation. this is prprime ministerer joseh muscat. >> i think it is a historic vote. it shows our democracy and our .ociety is maturing
8:15 am
where we can all say we are equal. amy: malta is a predominantly roman catholic country that has in recent years seen a rapid shift away from its conservative roots. until 2011, malta was just one of three nations where divorce was illegal. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, dedemocracynow.org, the war and peace repoport. i'm amy goodman. nermeen: and i''m nermeen shaia. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. we begin today's show in brazil, where former president luiz inacio lula da silva was convicted on corruption charges wednesday and sentenced to nine and a half years in prison. he will remain free on appeal. lula has been the frontrunner in the 2018 elections and is widely considered one of brazil's most popular political figures. the former union leader co-founded brazil's workers party and served as president from 2003 to 2010. during that time, he helped lift
8:16 am
tens of millions of brazilians out of poverty. the sentencing of lula comes a year after his successor, president dilma rousseff, also of the workers party, was impeached by the brazilian senate in a move she has denounced as a coup. prosecutors allege a construction firm spent about refurbishing a beachside $1.1 million apartment for lula and his wife in exchange for public contracts. he is also facing four other corruption trials. amy: but lula says he has been the victim of a political witch hunt. his legal team has found to appeal the conviction. in a statement they said -- "for over three years, lula has been subject to a politically motivated investigation. no credible evidence of guilt has been produced, and overwhelming proof of his innocence blatantly ignored." meanwhile, many of the lawmakers who orchestrated rousseff's ouster last year are also facicg corruption scandalals. last month, federal prosecutors charged president michel temer with corruption, accusing the president of taking millions of
8:17 am
dollars in bribes. we go now to rio de janierol -- we go now to rio de janeiro brazil where we are joined by the pulitzer prize winning journalist glenn greenwald, co-founder of the intercept. we will talk about a lot of issues this hour, but let's start in brazil. talk about the indictment of the former p president, lula. >> it is hard to put into words -- amy: the conviction. >> the political earthquake this is for brazil. lula has been the singular, dominant figure in brazilian politics for more than 15 years. he is identified internationally as being the brand of the country. he was president for eight years and oversaw extraordinary economic growth, left office with an 86% approval rating. he is currently leading in the
8:18 am
introduction and all public opinion polls are the 2018 elections. he is a polarizing figure. there's a large segment of the population that despises him and does not want to see him return to power, but there is a large segment of the population that wants to see him be president again. certainly, has more support than any of the other candidates. to take somebody who is this dominant on the brazilian local landscape, not just in terms of its recent past, but also its short-term future, the person overwhelmingly likely to become the country's next president through the ballot box and convict him on charges of corruption, bribery, and money laundering and sentenced him just under a decade in prison, you really can't get much more consequential than this. independent of thehe merits of e case against lula and the extraordinary thing about this case is that there is a lot of different corruption charges and claims against lula, including
8:19 am
being at the center of the petrobrasought the corruption. this has been regarded as an ancillary case, not very strong and involves kind of obscure questions about who was actually the owner of this triplex apartment that receive the benefits. lula insists he is not the owner of the apartment, where the state insist that was a scam and he really is the owner and these benefits went to him. leaving aside the merits of the case, which will now be adjudicated on appeal, if you look at what has actually happened, it is amazing. in brazil, you have first leader of theountry who was electeded president am a a dilma rousseff come a impeached on charges that even if u believe them are exextremely petty in the context of the corruption claims lodged against the people who removed her. you took out the elected president of pt would severely harm did and now you take the was pt candidate, who president and likely will be again, and you convict him on
8:20 am
charges and make him and eligible to run for office for the next 20 years. it certainly looks like weather, again, these claims are meritorious or not, that there is a real attempt to preclude the public from having the leaders that it once, which are the leaders of pt. at the same time you have that going on, once dilma was removed from office, you move from a central government with pt to a center-right government with her successor michel temer who formed a coalition with the right-wing party and now they're talking about removing temer and extending -- putting the next person in line, the head of the lower house, essentially, the speaker of the house, who is a memberf the righght-wing democrats s party. which means you u will go from a centerleft party to center right party to a right-wing party without a single vote in cast. there is a lot of concern and a lot of perception on the part of brazilians that this is a further blow to demococracy, tht
8:21 am
this is s really just politicaly driven, that there are all kinds of corrupt figures on the right, including president michel temer and a senator who was the domadate that ran against 201 in 2014 and a must beat her, and have not been convicted or even left office. temer remains running the country got even know the whole country urged him on audio paid tog bribes witnesses to keep them silent. i think it has to be underscored that there is reasonable debate about how strong the cases against lula. it's the way in which these cases are being prosecuted, the people who are paying prices andprotected, does give a strong appearce of it being politically motivated, whether that is the intention or not. nermeen: there have been reports that protesters -- people came out on the streets yesterday
8:22 am
following the conviction, both in support of the conviction and opposed to it. so could you talk about that in the people who have been -- who have approved, who think this is a good decision made by the judiciary to convict lula? >> sure. this goes back to the protest , whicht against dilma the brazilian media, a corporate media very much opposed to dilma and in favor of impeachment, depicted as this kind of uprising on the part of the people. the reality was much different. there's a huge segment of the population, primarily the wealthy, upper-middle-class, that just like pt because of its socialist policies. it is become much less socialist over the years. they have gotten into bed with some oligarchs. they are still perceived as a socialist party. compared to the right, they oppose austerity more, favor greater spending on social programs, so there is a segment
8:23 am
onthe country that hates pt ideological grounds. that is the segment of the population that has been trying to defeat pt at the bottom box for 16 years -- ballot box for 16 years a and has failed to doo that were out on the streets demanding dilma's impeachment. they then went to the streets to demand her impeachment, which is not surprising. so the people out on the streets now demanding libby imprisoned by the people who have always hated pt and hated lula, strictly on ideological grounds. there are people from the hard-core loyalists of lula and dilma and pt who are out on the streets protesting his imprisonment. this is the big question that continues to lurk over brazil, which i shall remind everybody, is the fifth-largest or fifth most populous country on the planet. 260 million people. it really matters what happens here. the lurking question is, are you going to move beyond the kind of
8:24 am
hardore political junkies on the right and the left when it comes to street protests -- we have nothing massive street protests demanding the removal of michel temer and we have nothing people pouring onto the streets in anger o over lula's conviction -- albeit, it hahas been less than 24 4 hours. we might see that. the reason is brazilians are exhausted. this is not a country where there are isolated corruption cases against specific political figures. this is a country, for decades, has s had a political class that is systematically corrupt. the only thing that has changed is you have an independent judiciary, a judiciary that is a lot more aggressive about holding people in political office accountable. there is more transparency. so it is being exposed. brazilians have seen the e entie political class of brasilia is itself corrupt. that they're political system is one based in corruption. they really aren't convinced
8:25 am
that they should be out on the 's becauseanding temer they're not convinced whoever replaces him will be any better, just like temer replacing dilma made thingngs worse. i don't know how much loyalty there is to lula among the broad population, given that people are really disenchanted with an exhausted by political scandal. if i had to bet, i would say there is not going to be a mass uprising protesting lula. there will be some who are hard-core pt followers, but i don't think you have massive social instability over the fact that lula got convicted, especially since they have not put him in prison. ousterwant to go to the brazilian president recep who was recently here in democracy now! studios. she was talking about lula. >> i think that lula will run for president them unless there
8:26 am
is an effofort to convict him on appeal. because today, lula still the only president who has a significant number of votes. yes a 38.5% support. the others in the latest polls all had around 10%, 9%, five or 6%. so there is that difference. there is the concern on the part of those who carried out the coup. they're concerned about the situation. now we have to see how things i think it isp very difficult to convicict him twice. i don't think there's any basis for that. because the witnesses who were called when i called him, they did not incriminate him. in addition, i think there could be other efforts to avoid the 2018 elections. because certainly, those who carried out the coup and are pushing the coup program, are not going to enjoy popular support. i can assure you of that. amy: to see the full hour
8:27 am
interview with the ouster president dilma rousseff, you can go to democracynow.org. glenn, your response? >> i think maybe she overstates a little bit the inevitability of lula's victory. polling tends to be about name recognition. ultimately, as the election proceeds of people a more attention to the obscure candidate, they can get some traction. but she is definitely right that if you had to bet your money on one person to win in 2018, it would be lula. that is who i would put my money on. there is no political talent even close to lula in terms of his ability to be persuasive and charismatic and to appeal to very few a way that other politicians i've ever seen in my lifetime are capable of doing. you certainly would not bet against him. i have been on your show many times talking about the impeachment process. you know what a political
8:28 am
upheaval and crisis it was for this country to remove dilma, to remove democratically elected president who is part of a party that won four consecutive national elections. a tour the country apart. imagine if the elites of this country went through all of that to get her out of office only for a year and a half later, pt to return to power in a person of lula? they are petrified that lula will return to power. they want to make sure he is this criminalough process. but there is another aspect to it that i think is important to point out. this not so black and white, this morality play. there are a lot of politicians and brasilia across the political spectrum who are very affordable to corruption charges and having criminal proceedings brought against them. they are petrified, all of them. they have watched some of the most powerful politicians and
8:29 am
its oligarchs go to prison, including the most powerful and feared politician in brazil over the last several years who is now sitting in a federal prison without any real hope of getting out anytime soon. it is a serious threat. whatat we seee now is them staro unify. recently, lula gave an interview in which he sort of defended michel temer and said, let's not jump to conclusions about whether he is really guilty. we need to see the evidence. there is starting to be a movement on the parts of all of these e politicians who are vulnerable to corruption charges . how much of a threat lula really classto the oligarchical -- he is become a close ally with a lot of the oil and construction executives, made a lot of money by doing business with a lot of these extremely wealthy and powerful financial interests in brazil. he is not the lula from 1986 where he was this firebrand, you
8:30 am
know, hard-core socialist union leader. he is been integrated into the power structure. i think they want to make sure pt does not come back to power, but i don't think it is accurate to depicteted as them viviewinga a some kinind of towering enemyf the elite. has learned tote work with lula. i don't know how petrified they are of his return. nermeen: quickly before we go to break, i want to ask you about something else that occurred on the very same day that lula was convicted, that is yesterday, wednesday, which is that the brazilian senate approved a government sponsored series of labor reforms. could you tell us about those reforms and how the approval byy the senate, as reports are suggesting, my boost the temer government? teme also facing corruption charges.
8:31 am
i'm really glad you asked that because there is no way to discuss the situation in brazil without understanding the agenda of international finance and domestic i'm really glad oligarn particular, their desperation to impose extremely harsh austerity measures on an already suffering poor population. michel temer, shortly after he was installed as president, came to new york and spoke to a gathering of hedge funds and foreign policy elites in new york and said that the real reason dilma was impeached was not because of these budgetary tricks she was accused of using, but it was because she was unwilling to impose a level of austerity that internationalal capital and the business interest in brazil wanted. and is why they put temer office, to "reform pensions and labor laws, to make people work longer, to extend the retirement
8:32 am
rate, to reduce their benefits." this is what the whole thing is about. it is amazing because every time it looks like temer is going to stay, the real increases in strength, as does the brazilian stock market. every time it looks like he's in trouble, the stock market weakens because international finance once temer to stay because he is the only one willing to impose these harsh austerity measures because he is already so unpopular and so old that he is not going to run again and can't run again, so he doesn't care. he is willing to do their dirty work for them. at the same time when lula got convicted and it look like or the court has declared him ineligible to run again in 2018, what happened to the real? thekyrocketed against dollar. the stock market boomed because international finance once the right to continue to maintain power in brazil. everything is about the underlying attempt to take away the benefits from the nation's
8:33 am
for,that pt has legislated to make people work longer hours, to make them have fewer benefits, to transfer wealth from the laborers and the poor in this country back to the oligarchs. that is why dilma was removed and why michel temer is in power and why they want to make lula and eligible. that t is what lurks at the cenr of all of this entry. amy: glenn, please stay with us, talking about lula da silva convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to 9.5 years in prison. when we come back, we will speak to glenn greenwald about the putin-trunk versions of their meeting at the g20 and also about the latest brouhaha, the donald trump, jr., jared kushner, manafort meeting with the so-called russian government lawyer. we will also talk about what is happening with nsa whistleblower reality winner. stay with us. ♪ [music break]
8:34 am
8:35 am
amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.orgrg, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman wiwith nermeenen shaikh. we are speaking with glenn greeeenwald for the hour. nermeen: the white house remains in crisis mode following revelations that donald trump's own son openly embraced an apparent effort by the russian government to peddle information incrcriminating or clinton in nn attempt to help trump when the presidency. emails showed trump junior was told russia wanted to share incriminating information about the clinton as "part of russia and its government support for mr. trump." trump junior replied -- "if it is what you say, i love it, especially later in the summer." receiving the imo last june, trump junior, along with jared kushner and paul manafort, met with someone described to them as a "russian government attorney."
8:36 am
remained secret until kushner mentioned it on a revised security clearance form. amy: in an interview with reuters, president trump's defended his oldest son. he said -- "i think many people would have held that meeting [captioning made possible by democracy now!] when asked if he knew about the meeting, he said "no, i did not know until a couple of days ago when i heard about this." still with us, glenn greenwald . as you look at this, as an american from your vantage point in rio de janeiro, your response to this latest development in the whole issue of russiagate? so here's what i don't understand about this. certainly, it is an interesting email. i am glad it surfaced. it does lend some credence to the possibility that the trump administration colluded with the russians criminally, meaning with their hacking of the dnc
8:37 am
and put us to enough, if in fact the russians did that as the intelligence agencies claim -- although, that produced a evidence for it. it is possible the trump officials colluded with the russians to commit that crime. this possible they didn't. we have not seen any evidence they have. remember, this is not evidedence suggesting trump officials after colluded with the russians to commit a crime comedy hacking. what the democrats are saying is that the trump administration and their defenders in the media , fox news like him are "moving the goalposts" by saying, well, this only shows that trump junior was willing to get information from the russian government about clinton, but it does not show there was criminal collusion. to me it seems as though the people moving the goalposts are the democrats. the claim all along, the reason why there is talk of imimpeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see trump and his associaiates
8:38 am
criminally prosecuted is the claim they committed crimes by colluding with the russians with regard to the hacking. that is what harry reid and john podesta has always said, that has always been the democratic claim. this evidence doeoes not in any way to just that. whatat it suggests instead is tt donald trump, jr. was told that the russian government had incriminating evidence about hillary clinton and wanted to give it to him. he said, well, i would love to have it. now, i guess there is some sense that it is wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. i don't think it is illegal at all to do that, but there is a claim that it is somehow immoral. what i don't understand, the a frome dossier came somebody who was getting first paid by republicans and the democrats, going to moscow and
8:39 am
getting dirt about donald trump from kremlin affiliated agents and moscow. in other words, he went to russia, talked to people affiliated with the government and said, give major to about donald trump. presumably, got it and put it in the memo. similarly, there is an amazing political article from january of this year that describes how allies of the clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the the, met with officials of the ukrainian government, which was desperate to help hillary clinton went and donald trump lose, and get information incriminating about trump from ukrainian officials. in other words, ukraine was meddling in our elections by giving democrats incriminating evidence about trump. although it is dirty, i personally think all of these events are sort of the way politics work. of course if you are an important campaign and someone offers you incriminating information about your opponent, you want it whether it comes from ukraine or moscow or
8:40 am
elsewhere. i want to hear the standard we're supposed to use to assess trump jr.'s actions. is it that it is wrong in all cases to get incriminating evidence about your opponent from a foreign government? in which case, what is it ok for democrats to do it with ukrainian officials or their investigator to go to moscow and get dirt on trump? or is it some other standard that distinguishes what trump jr. did in this case versus what democrats did with the steele dossier and ukraine? i don't see this distinction -- amy: some lawyers say it has to do with breaking finance laws or campaign laws that have to do with getting something of value, not necessarily financial, from a foreign entity, a state or nonstate actor. >> right. i think there are a lot more lawyers and campapaign finance
8:41 am
lawywyers who have said that jut getting information about a candidate would not constitute something of value. but let's assume that is true. let's take a theory as though it is true. why doesn't it also apply then to the person working for democrats who went to moscow and got something of value, namely information about trump, from kremlin-connected people in moscow? were democrats, including somemeone working for the dnc, o got something of value from ukrainian officials? ,my: let me go to marcy wheeler what she said about the significance of this week's news. >> the e.u. now asks a bunch of -- the email at a bunch of new details. most important, the trump campaign knew that russia was trying to get donald trump collected probably before even the intelligence community. we have known the cia i'd gotten a tip from a foreign partner sometime in june that even today
8:42 am
nsa still does not think was that great a piece of intelligence. meanwhile, we learned in early june don jr. was getting this email saying there was the part of -- effort on the part of russia to get dirt on her father and we will send dirt on hillary clinton as a result of that. and don jr. said, great, give me that information. amy: that is marcy wheeler. she wrote, as you're describing, the same thing over the weekend, how does this differ, for example, democrat going to get information from the british spy christopher steel who then got information from people in russia? she said it all changed with seeing the actual emails. marcy to, i agree with a large extent, but not fully because i think -- first of all, yesterday, democrats attacked bernie sanders because when
8:43 am
asked about the donald trump, jr. email, sanders said, there are significant questions raised by this but we should not rush to judgment. we should wait to see the evidence. part of my discomfort with this whole thing all along, and as a lawyer and know w this well, is when you get bits and pieces of information leaked through the media without the full context of what is taking place, it is very difficult to assess what it actually is. there an independent prosecutor, robert mueller, the subpoena power who is investigating this. what this you now says is it is from a british promoter who is trying to learn donald trump junior into a meeting with someone who is his friend saying the russians want your father to win and they're willing to give you information to help. the russianclear government wanted donald trump to win. it is not surprising. nor is it surprising that donald trump, jr., when told the russian government wants to give
8:44 am
them information that can help his father said a bad light on hillary clinton, he was willing to do that. why do we consider that surprising, let alone criminal? i think it bolsters the democrats you that the russians -- the theory that russians wanted trump to win and the trump campaign was willing to take help from the russians. but there is still a lot more steps that need to be completed before we get to any kind of evidence of an actual crime being committed. that is why i don't think this revelation is as significant or a smoking gun when it comes to the impeachment of the prosecution case. nermeen: even other trump campaign has always denied collusion with the russians in the 2016 presidential election, in his interview with reuters yesterday, trump suggested that there had been interference in last are's election saying -- "something happened and we have to find out what it is because we can't allow a thing like that
8:45 am
to happen in our election process." could you respond to that and tell us what you think it is that he is alluding to? well, i think there are two separate issues that we should not conflate. one is the question of whether the russians were behind the hacks. i mean, was it just some group of russians, russian hackers come or russians acting in a rogue way or were they actually kremlin officials ordered by putin? we don't know the answers, even of the intelligence agencies have said it was putin who ordered it. , that isn thatquote what trump is talking about, we have to get to the bottom of who hacked john podesta females and make the evidence public so the public can see these assertions they have been making actually have evidence behind them. then there is a second question, which is independent, which is if it is true the russian government hacked john podesta
8:46 am
and the dnc's gmail's and just to be did what they got to wikileaks, did the trump campaign participate in that crime either by working with the russians before the hack or working with them after the hack on how to get the information distributed in a way that would most hurt the democrats? that to me is the core question that has been at the center of this controversy from the beginning. we still don't have evidence the trumump administration participated in that part of the crime. hopefully, we will learn one way or the other in a sober, rational, comprehensive way, not through bits and pieces being leaked by anonymous sources, but by an investigation length forth the case in a way we can all see the evidence. amy: glenn, we will continue this discussion after the breakfast of coming up, how the intercepts company is helping support the legal defense for the alleged nsa whistleblower
8:47 am
reality winner. stay with us. ♪ [music break]
8:48 am
amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. a shout out today's visiting class. nermeen: earlier this week, the parent company of the intercept, first look media, announced it will provide support for the legal defense of reality winner. she is the nsa contractor who pleaded not guilty in june to charges she leaked a top-secret document to the intercept. winner, who remains and joe, was charged for allegedly leaking a top-secret document showing how russian military intelligence attempted to hack into several states voting infrastructure. she faces up to tenures in prison if convicted. amy: the intercepts handling of the story faced widespread scrutiny. the department of justice claimed it caught the league or in part by actions taken by the intercept. earlier this week on the intercepts editor in tees said
8:49 am
the organization has done an internal review. >> an internal review of the reporting of the story has been completed. the ongoing criminal case prevents us from going into detail, but i can state that at several points in the editorial process, our practices fell short of the standards to which we hold ourselves for minimizing the risks of source exposure when handling anonymously provided materials. outlets,r journalistic we routinely verify such materials with any individuals or institutions implicated by them and we seek their comment. this process carry some risks a source exposure that are impossible to mitigate when dealing with sensitive materials . nonetheless, it is clear we should have taken greater precautions to protect the identity of the source who was anonymous even to us. as the editor in chief, i take responsibility for this failure and making sure the internal newsroom issues that contribute to it are resolved.
8:50 am
we're conducting a conference of analysis of our source protection articles and we will make revisions to ensure that any materials provided to us anonymously or handled in the most secure manner possible. missionns core to our to make sure our journalist and is carried out in a manner that honors the risks that whistleblower state. amy: that was betsy read from the intercept. still with us, glenn greenwaldl, cofounder of the intercept. talk about the latest. according to the justice department, reality winnnner gos to trial in the fall. talk about what your organization is doing. so this idea of prosecuting sources and whistleblowers, people who provide newsworthy information to journalists, which is what reality winner is doing, the idea of prosecuting them as spies under the espionage act is something that really began to accelerate under the obama administration, the obama justice department prosecutor more sources under
8:51 am
that law than all previous ministrations can bind -- previous ministrations combined. the trump administration is continuing that. this is something that should disturb everybody who believes in a free press and who believes in just prosecutions. in the past, we have all supported whistleblowers and sources. we raised over $100,000 for chelsea manning's legal defense and supported, straight and edward snowden and others. we will do everything we can in this case to support reality winner, even aware of no idea whether she is the source for this story. obviously, we are constrained because we are involved in the story because we are the ones who the government accuses of having leaked to us. it is difficult for us to say anything beyond what betsy read
8:52 am
said, which is that we made mistakes on our handling of the story, but are constrained to say more. the one thing i would suggest is everything known publicly about this story, about what she did, what we did, comes from the trump justice department and from the fbi. the claims they made in the context of a criminal case. i would just urge everybody not to treat those claims as though they are the unvarnished truth. notity winner has pleaded guilty. there will be a trial. there are things in the fbi's affidavit that are unproven or untrue. so while we certainly may mistakes as betsy reed said, it is important to apply skepticism to the claims of the trump justice department, of all people. nermeen: can you comment on your recent piece on rachel maddow about a fake nsa document you whichch raises several
8:53 am
key questions for study article dealt with this episode on the show last week. >> this is what i mean by an inside-out scoop. , for some reason, appears to be shopping a fairly convincing fake nsa document that purports to directly implicate somebody from the trump campaign in working with the russians on their attack on the election. it is a forgery. it is either a forgery or everything will national security official we consulted about this story is wrong about it. nermeen: can you talk about what you discussed in your piece and what mistakes -- how they believe this i loosely forged document -- how they believed this obviously forged document? >> rachel spent 21 minutes of her show touting this extraordinarily fascinating story that she called and exclusive. and in the introduction that you just played and many times the other segment, she depicted this
8:54 am
forced document that she received as being this masterfully crafted highly sophisticated fake because she strongly implied over and over that the person who forged this document came from the trump administration in an attempt to trick her into running a story that ended up being fake. the reality is, we have spoken with the person who actually did the forgery. he sent that same document to buzzfeed. does feed went online and said, we got the same document as maddow. there was one small difference. it they said, we got the same document and instantly realized it was a joke, it was in obvious fake that nobody ever would've taken seriously. to the extent that rachel was making the point that media outlets should be careful when 70 anonymously sent them a document that is -- somebody anonymously sent them a document that might be fake, that is a perfectly fine point to make, i
8:55 am
guess, but i think all news outlet already know they have to be careful with documents that they get sent to them in the mail when authenticating them. i don't we needed 21 minutes of rachel saying that. i think the concern we had about the story is she strongly implied whoever got this document and forged it got it before we actually published it online. she was saying the metadata of the document shows whoever created the forgery based on the document we published got it prior to our publication of it, which went have meant only summit in the trump government or the intercept could have been the one to have forged it and sent it to her. that was a misreading of the metadata. the metadata shows whoever sent it to her got interactive the from our site once we published it. in fact, the person who forged it, he said he took it from our site, put it into a photoshop program and it took him all of 10 minutes to erase our text and enter the text he erased. we published the documents are
8:56 am
everyone can see it. it is a valid warning from rachel maddow to make sure we authenticate document as journalists we get in the mail, but i don't to get merited the strong any wonder that this is some highly sophisticated operation on the part of some high-level trump official to publishingedia into false stories. amy: just to be clear, because it is hard to follow this when you talk about metadata, you are talking about the document you posted online from an anonymous source, which many are saying was reality winner talking about voter information that was leaked, that that piece of paper that showed where it came from ---- this is the wholele controy around the intercept posting the original online -- this forger took and then replaced the words on the document with some he wanted to see if he could get out there and and you said, did in all of 10 minutes. >> right.
8:57 am
he took the intercept document once we published it, erased the text but kept the format so it would look like a top-secret nsa document, and entered some cartoonish text about how the nsa heard the campaign manager talking to the russians about how to distribute emails hacked from podesta to wikileaks, basically, what would be nsausion, and having the purport to of her the trump campaign manager say that the videotape from the steele dossier was authentic. it would be the biggest story ever, but it was so i loosely fabricated. -- obviously fabricated. stamp was a few hours before we publish. that made her think that they got it before we published. the confusion was the date and time on the document is not the date and time we published it, but the date and time we
8:58 am
uploaded it to the internet, which matched perfectly the date and time on the document we published. it was clear the person who sent it to her did not get a before we published and did not have special access, but got it when we put it online. that was the primary point of the article. said in betsy reed internal review has been conducted at the intercept to see how the identity of the alleged leaker was revealed. so what did the internal review show about what mistakes the intercept made? anything were than could take that internal review and put it online. the problem is, lawyers, our lawyers and others, have warned if we disclose information about the internal processes of our reporting, there is a risk the government could use some of that information or try to use it to bolster their prosecution of reality winner. the last thing we want to do or should do is say anything or do anything that further jeopardizes this person, who is
8:59 am
the accusations against her are correct, was simply acting as a person of conscience trying to disclose to the public information that she felt was newsworthy. so we're not going to do that. amy: glenn greenwald, they are being with
9:00 am

24 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on