Is American democracy in peril?

Claudine Gay says U.S. is dealing with historic levels of political polarization, but there is reason for hope
by Colleen Walsh Harvard Staff Writer

Political scientist Claudine Gay said her interest in the field developed out of a desire to understand what motivates the political choices and behaviors of ordinary people and “how well those perspectives are represented in national politics.” Since the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021, Gay, the Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Wilbur A. Cowett Professor of Government and of African and African American Studies, has found herself rethinking how she approaches the discipline and reconsidering the foundational norms, values, and institutions long considered central to American democracy. She shared some of those thoughts in a recent exchange with the Gazette. This interview was edited for clarity and length.

 

Q&A

Claudine Gay

GAZETTE: American democracy appears to many to be on shaky ground right now. How does that affect your work/scholarly perspective?

 

GAY: As a scholar, I feel challenged in bringing the normal paradigms and theoretical frameworks we rely on in political science to understanding the conditions that we face right now in the U.S, because so many of the assumptions that typically ground our thinking have been upended. This crystallized for me as I witnessed the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Here was a moment when thousands of people turned against American democracy itself, choosing violence as the way to achieve their aims. I thought a threat that profound would shock and unify us. But it, instead, has generated as polarized a response as any other issue or event. That reality has disrupted my thinking, and it forces us all in the discipline to consider anew the basic norms, values, and institutions that we’ve taken for granted as stable (and stabilizing) features of American political life.

 

GAZETTE: Can you talk a bit more about your reaction to Jan. 6? Has it evolved since the event itself?

 

GAY: Before I became the dean of FAS, I taught a course titled “Democratic Citizenship,” the study of public opinion and political participation in contemporary American politics. The question we kept returning to is the basic premise of democracy, whether ordinary people can be trusted to make consequential decisions. And as we interrogated that idea over the course of the semester, we would focus increasingly on the conditions that enable ordinary people to make consequential decisions, realizing that context matters.

 

Since Jan. 6, I have been thinking about how many of those conditions are directly under assault. One of those conditions is access to a common foundation of facts, which play a central role in the functions of a democratic society. But with a fractured media landscape, as well as the echo-chamber-like quality of social media, Americans now live in separate “factual” universes.

 

Another important contextual factor is equal access to a transparent, secure electoral process. Our democracy is made better the more we all participate, not when fewer people participate. And yet nearly two dozen state legislatures are working with relentless energy to erect barriers that will make it even more difficult to vote. If successful, these measures may have the effect of erasing whole groups of people from American political life.

 

Another condition that we talked about was the confidence that your voice will be heard and represented, which is the most basic expectation of democracy. A sense of political efficacy, reinforced by evidence of democratic responsiveness, is in part what motivates people to participate. From extreme partisan gerrymandering to the continuing attempts to discredit the 2020 election, all of these efforts give citizens ample reason to question whether their voices are heard and represented.

 

GAZETTE: Do you think we can take some comfort in the idea that democracy is always somewhat in flux, that we are always somewhat more or less democratic?

 

GAY: I’m not sure if I take “comfort” in the idea, but it does help to put this moment in perspective. Multiracial democracy is a work in progress for the U.S. — that’s undeniable. But a sense of alarm about signs of democratic backsliding, given what is at stake (including our credibility in the world), still feels appropriate.

 

GAZETTE: How do we ensure that democracy survives in this country?

 

GAY: One answer might be a bipartisan consensus and commitment to re-establish a common foundation of facts (for example, about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election), and to reaffirm the importance of broad-based democratic participation. But such consensus is elusive. If it were a fringe movement outside of politics that aimed to sow distrust in our electoral system and limit access to the vote, then it would be easier to see how we might find our way to a solution. But this is not happening outside of the political system; rather, it finds expression mainly through the Republican Party. That is what makes this so alarming. It is so hard to see how to break through in any kind of bipartisan way.

 

GAZETTE: The nation has endured deep divisions before. Why is this moment different?

 

GAY: The existence of different views and positions, hotly debated and fought over, is normal and, in many ways, is a strength of democracy. But the polarization that exists now is unprecedented in its intensity. It’s reached levels that are toxic when it comes to the ability to come together on any issue. When you have a situation where substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans view the other party as “immoral” and a “threat to the U.S.,” that is not ordinary political and policy disagreement. There’s no room for even a conversation across partisan lines, let alone compromise.

 

If we exist in a moment when bipartisan collaboration and compromise are impossible and in some ways anathema to partisans, then we are not well-served by decision-making systems that require supermajorities. If being a Republican now means that you minimize — even embrace and normalize — the Jan. 6 attack, if it means that you continue to discredit the 2020 election, if it means that you believe the problem with democracy is when too many people vote, if that is all part of the identity of being Republican now, how do you engage those partisans in the urgent work of protecting our democracy?

 

GAZETTE: Can you give me some examples of that work?

 

GAY: We need federal legislation to protect voting rights, such as the two bills now stalled in the Senate. These bills alone won’t entirely undo all the damage that’s been done through state-level action over the last year and a half, but some of the restrictive measures now in place would be rolled back. Federal legislation is impossible, however, without the elimination of the filibuster, given the Republican party’s commitment to making it maximally difficult to vote.

 

GAZETTE: Is there anything you look to that gives you any hope?

 

GAY: What gives me hope is that even as difficult as we make it to vote, so many people persevere and turn out. In the 2020 presidential election, more than 159 million Americans voted, many for the first time. That’s the largest total number of ballots cast in U.S. history, by a wide margin. Citizens overcame all of the obstacles we put in front of them — sometimes waiting in poll lines for two, three hours — to demand that their voices be heard. That to me is the clearest expression of the continuing faith in the power and promise of multiracial democracy, in the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to make consequential decisions. Many advocacy groups are engaged in deep organizing and grassroots mobilization to register new voters and ensure their access to free and fair elections. These efforts were pivotal in 2020 and will continue to be. An expanding electorate, millions of citizens newly awake to the transformative power of the vote, and more determined than ever to be part of the democratic process and to be equitably represented in government — that’s what gives me hope.

 

Bill McKibben on How Climate Crises and New Technologies Will Change What It Means to Be Human

Murtaza Hussain

Is the human race approaching its demise? The question itself may sound hyperbolic — or like a throwback to the rapture and apocalypse. Yet there is reason to believe that such fears are no longer so overblown. The threat of climate change is forcing millions around the world to realistically confront a future in which their lives, at a minimum, look radically worse than they are today. At the same time, emerging technologies of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence are giving a small, technocratic elite the power to radically alter homo sapiens to the point where the species no longer resembles itself. Whether through ecological collapse or technological change, human beings are fast approaching a dangerous precipice.

The threats that we face today are not exaggerated. They are real, visible, and potentially imminent. They are also the subject of a recent book by Bill McKibben, entitled “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?” 

McKibben is an environmentalist and author, as well as the founder of 350.org, a campaign group working to reduce carbon emissions. His book provides a sober, empirical analysis of the reasons why the human race may be reaching its final stages.

McKibben spoke to The Intercept about the book. The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Can you explain what you mean by the “human game”?

I was looking for a phrase to describe the totality of everything that we do as human beings. You could also term it as human civilization, or the human project. But “game” seems like a more appropriate term. Not because it’s trivial, but because, like any other game, it doesn’t really have a goal outside of itself. The only goal is to continue to play, and hopefully play well. Playing the human game well might be described as living with dignity and ensuring that others can live with dignity as well.

There are very serious threats now facing the human game. Basic questions of human survival and identity are being realistically called into question. It’s become clear that climate change is dramatically shrinking the size of the board on which the game is played. At the same time, some emerging technologies threaten the idea that human beings as a species will even be around to play in the future.

Could you briefly run down the implications of climate change for the future of human civilization, as we presently understand it?

Climate change is by far the biggest thing that humans have ever managed to do on this planet. It has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere in fundamental ways, raised the temperature of the planet over 1 degree Celsius, melted half the summer ice in the Arctic, and made the oceans 30 percent more acidic. We are seeing uncontrollable forest fires around the world, along with record levels of drought and flooding. In some places, average daily temperatures are already becoming too hot for human beings to even work during the daylight.

People are making plans to leave major cities and low-lying coastal areas, where their ancestors have lived for thousands of years. Even in rich countries like the United States, critical infrastructure is being strained. We saw this recently with the shutdown of electrical power in much of California due to wildfire risk. This is what we’ve done at merely 1 degree Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels. It is already becoming difficult to live in large parts of the planet. On our current trajectory, we are headed for 3 or 4 degrees of warming. At that level, we simply won’t have a civilization like we do now.

Since the major culprit in climate change remains the fossil fuel industry, what practical steps can be taken to get their activities under control? And given that they also share a planet with everyone else, what exactly is their plan for a future of climate dystopia?

We have already made efforts at divestment and halting the construction of pipelines, but the next crucial area is finance: focusing on the banks and asset managers that give them the money to do what they do. It has become very clear that the only goal of the fossil fuel industry is to protect their business model at all costs, even at the cost of the planet. Major oil companies like Exxon knew about the connection between carbon emissions and climate change in the 1980s. They knew and believed in what was coming. Instead of rationally adjusting their behavior to avoid it, they invested millions in lobbying and disinformation to ensure that the world wouldn’t do anything to make them change or stop their activities.

To the extent that any fossil fuel company thinks about the long run at all — and it’s not clear that any still do — they know that their days are numbered. Renewable energy costs are plummeting, and what the industry is fighting for now is to just keep themselves going for a few more decades. Their goal is to ensure that we’re still burning a lot of oil and gas in 10 or 20 years, rather than trying to get off the stuff as fast as possible.

The other major threat that you identify is posed by technologies like genetic engineering. Can you explain the threat that they pose to human identity and purpose?

Just as we had long taken for granted the stability of the planet, we have likewise taken for granted the stability of the human species. There are technologies now emerging that call into question very fundamental assumption about what it means to be a human being.

Take, for example, genetic engineering technologies like CRISPR. These are already now coming into effect, as we saw recently in China, where a pair of twins were reportedly born after having their genes modified in embryo. I don’t see any problem with using gene editing to help existing people with existing diseases. That is very different, however, from genetically engineering embryos with specialized modifications.

Let’s say for example that an expectant couple decides to engineer their new child to have a certain hormonal balance aimed at improving their mood. That child may reach adolescence one day and find themselves feeling very happy without any particular explanation why. Are they falling in love? Or is it just their genetic engineering specs kicking in? Human beings could soon be designed with a whole range of new specs that modifies their thoughts, feelings, and abilities. I think that such a prospect — not far-fetched at all today — will be a devastating attack on the most vital things about being human. It will call into question basic ideas of who we are and how we think about ourselves.

There is also the implication of accelerating technological change in genetic engineering technology. After modifying their first child, those same parents may come back five years later to the clinic to make changes to their second child. In the meantime, the technology has marched on, and you can now get a whole new series of upgrades and tweaks. What does that mean for the first child? It makes them the iPhone 6: obsolete. That’s a very new idea for human beings. One of the standard features of technology is obsolescence. A situation where you are rapidly making people themselves obsolete seems wrongheaded to me.

There also seems to be a question of economic inequality here, in the sense that people with more resources will be the ones with the access to these genetic enhancements.

As things stand, these technologies will take the economic inequality presently in existence and encode it in our genes. This is so obviously going to happen if we continue down this path that no one bothers to argue otherwise. Lee Silver, a professor at Princeton University who is one of the leading proponents of genetic modification, has already said that in the future we will have two unequal classes of human beings: “GenRich” and “naturals.” He and many others have already begun taking such a future as granted.

Do you think that artificial intelligence poses a similar threat to human beings?

Many of the first generation of people who studied AI came away deeply afraid of its potential implications. There is a fear that smart robots and programming codes may get out of hand and end up posing a threat to human beings. Those fears may or may not be real. At the end of the day, they worry me less than the more fundamental assault on human meaning and purpose posed by these technologies. They can easily eliminate most of the choices and activities that have given us our basic sense of identity as human beings.

What should be the priority of social movements seeking to defend “the human game” at the moment? And do we have cause for optimism?

Climate change is such an immediate and overpowering issue that it should be the focus of our attention right now, because it could make everything else moot. I’ve gotten to watch the rise of the climate movement over many years and it gives me cause for some optimism. We’ve recently seen massive climate strikes around the world. The Democratic Party in the United States is becoming energized on this issue. These are good signs. Whether they come in time or not, we don’t know. But the advent of human genetic engineering is not getting the attention it deserves at the present. The profound implications of CRISPR and other rapidly evolving technologies are things that we should give much more attention. From a strategic perspective, it would be good to get a resistance going sooner than later. As we have seen with fossil fuels, once there is a huge, powerful industry behind something, it becomes much more difficult to control.

It seems like at core there is an ideological issue underlying all of these threats that are presently facing human beings.

It’s instructive that a lot of the fantasies underlying the most extreme manifestations of genetic engineering and AI come from people in Silicon Valley who share a libertarian mindset. They are essentially hip versions of the Koch brothers. They share an ethos with the fossil fuel industry that says no one should ever question decisions made by the powerful and that no one should ever get in the way of business and technological innovation.

Meanwhile, the public is being told — and has been told for a long time — that they’re nothing but individuals and nothing but consumers. That goes against everything we know about human nature. Human beings are happy when they’re part of working communities, not when they’re out on their own as individuals trying to take over the universe. That’s what all these battles are in some sense about: building human solidarity against a hyper-individualist elite. We need to find out once again how to make decisions as a society, rather than have a small group of super-wealthy people privately making them for us.

The Constitution of the United States - Article 1 - Legislative

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.²  The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,³ for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.⁴

3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

5: The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4

1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,⁵ unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5

1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6

1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.⁶ They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7

1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9

1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.⁷

5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section 10

1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty & Implicates Trump as Paul Manafort Is Convicted. Is Impeachment Next?

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Talk of the possible impeachment of President Trump is growing in Washington after Tuesday’s stunning legal developments. In New York, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. Two hundred miles away in Virginia, Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort was found guilty of eight charges related to tax and bank fraud, as well as hiding a foreign account.

The Cohen case is likely to put the president in the most legal jeopardy. Michael Cohen worked for Trump from 2006 until this year. He admitted in court he arranged to illegally pay out money to two women—an adult film star and a Playboy model—to keep them from speaking during the 2016 campaign about their affairs with Donald Trump. Cohen said the payments were made, quote, “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” and that they were made, quote, “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” unquote.

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, wrote on Twitter, “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?” Davis later appeared on MSNBC and said Cohen is willing to speak with special counsel Robert Mueller about, quote, “a conspiracy to collude” with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. Davis also told The Washington Post Cohen knows about Trump’s participation in a criminal conspiracy to hack into Democratic Party officials’ emails during the 2016 election.

Michael Cohen becomes the fourth former Trump official to plead guilty to criminal charges. He joins former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s former campaign—deputy campaign manager Rick Gates and former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. Michael Cohen will be sentenced on December 12th. He’ll likely be sentenced to four to five years in prison.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, a jury convicted Paul Manafort on eight of 18 charges, but the jury could not reach a verdict on the other counts. Sentencing experts expect him to receive a prison term of about 10 years. The Manafort charges stem from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, but the case against Manafort focused on the work he did before he became President Trump’s campaign manager. Manafort was accused of hiding millions of dollars earned in Ukraine in overseas bank accounts and failing to pay taxes on the money. On Tuesday, President Trump briefly spoke with reporters about the Manafort verdict.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I feel badly for both. I must tell you that Paul Manafort is a good man. He was with Ronald Reagan. He was with a lot of different people over the years. And I feel very sad about that. It doesn’t involve me, but I still feel—you know, it’s a very sad thing that happened. This has nothing to do with Russian collusion. This started as Russian collusion. This has absolutely nothing to do—this is a witch hunt, and it’s a disgrace.

AMY GOODMAN: The question now is whether Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort will cooperate with Mueller’s investigation in exchange for lesser sentences. Or will President Trump pardon one or both men? To help answer these questions and more, we’re joined by investigative journalist Marcy Wheeler. She runs the website EmptyWheel.net, joining us from Michigan.

Marcy, welcome to Democracy Now! An epic day yesterday, when two of President Trump’s—well, his closest adviser, fixer, his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his former campaign chair, Paul Manafort, both guilty. Talk about the verdicts yesterday.

MARCY WHEELER: Yeah, it’s not often we need a split screen for guilty verdicts. Usually that’s reserved for sporting events. But the Manafort guilty verdicts were pretty much expected, because the case against him was a slam dunk. It was tax fraud. It was some bank fraud.

The charges that the jury was not able to reach a verdict on involved charges where Rick Gates’s testimony was central, so it seems like some people on the jury may not have found him all that credible, and also one charge where—Trump says it didn’t involve him. That’s not actually true. There was one charge where Manafort was trying to get a loan in 2016 from a banker in Chicago and promising him positions once Trump took the White House. And the impression is the jury decided that he was going to get that—Manafort was going to get that loan regardless of what kind of claims he made to the banker. And so, those are the charges that he wasn’t found guilty on.

But they’re both tax cheats. They’re both involved in other crimes. As you emphasized, the very interesting thing for Trump are the two hush money payments involved with the Cohen crime, because, there, he quite clearly said, and the criminal information said—I think it was the 46th word in the criminal information, named—named Trump, basically—didn’t name him by name, but said, you know, the person went on to become president of the United States—

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s go—

MARCY WHEELER: —and named him as—

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead.

MARCY WHEELER: Go ahead. And named him as being part of the conspiracy to pay off these women so as to hide these affairs for the election.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to U.S. Deputy Attorney Robert Khuzami announcing the felony charges that Michael Cohen pled guilty to yesterday.

ROBERT KHUZAMI: Today, as you heard, Michael Cohen pled guilty to eight felony charges. Five of those dealt with tax evasion for the years 2012 through 2016, in which he failed to report approximately $4.1 million in reported income. … In addition, Mr. Cohen pled guilty to two campaign finance charges, one for causing an unlawful corporate contribution and a second one for personally making an excessive personal contribution, both for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election. In addition, what he did was he worked to pay money to silence two women who had information that he believed would be detrimental to the 2016 campaign and to the candidate and the campaign. In addition, Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement for that money by submitting invoices to the candidate’s company which were untrue and false.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Marcy Wheeler, this the—really the biggest news. While Paul Manafort was the campaign chair for President Trump, you have Michael Cohen not only saying he committed a crime—he wasn’t even indicted, he just pled guilty yesterday, in a kind of unusual move where this happened all very fast. He not only said he was guilty, but he said that the president was guilty of ordering him to do this.

MARCY WHEELER: Right. In his statement in the courtroom—we don’t get cameras there, so we can’t play it. But in his statement in the courtroom, he was very clear that he did this with the involvement, at the behest of Donald Trump. So, while the Russian investigation is going to name Trump, and technically sort of did in the GRU indictment, it made it clear that he asked for Russia to hack Hillary, and they immediately did. But here, he is named explicitly, so it’s the first time in these wide-ranging legal investigations that he is being named and being accused of committing a crime—to cheat to get elected, basically.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Michael Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, speaking Tuesday night on MSNBC.

LANNY DAVIS: Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel, and is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows, not just about the obvious possibility of a conspiracy to collude and corrupt the American democracy system in the 2016 election—which the Trump Tower meeting was all about—but also knowledge about the computer crime of hacking and whether or not Mr. Trump knew ahead of time about that crime and even cheered it on. And we know he publicly cheered it on. But did he also have private information?

AMY GOODMAN: Now, that’s Michael Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis. Talk about the significance of what he’s saying, and what kind of information he’s offering to Robert Mueller, to Mueller.

MARCY WHEELER: Well, it’s not actually clear. Cohen has been pursuing a cooperation agreement for well over a month, probably a couple of months, and Mueller did not take him up on that, at least as far as has been made public. Clearly, Cohen implicated Trump in the hush payments, but he has not—as part of yesterday’s plea agreement, he has not publicly implicated Trump in any of the Russia-related crimes. So I’m not convinced that this guilty plea is more important than Manafort’s guilty verdicts yesterday, because Trump a long time ago said, “I think I’m OK, so long as Paul Manafort doesn’t flip on me. Paul Manafort is the only one who can really bring me down,” because it is true, or Cohen claims that he knows information about when Trump knew certain things about the hack and leak. But even Omarosa says that she already talked to Mueller’s people about that.
 
So, it’s possible—I mean, several things are possible, Amy. One is that Cohen’s right, and he will go talk to Mueller, and he will get some lesser sentence because he does it. It’s possible that Mueller doesn’t need Cohen’s cooperation, and Mueller wants to indict Cohen for part of the conspiracy, as well. And it’s possible that Mueller just doesn’t want to cooperate with Cohen because he’s been spending so much time talking to the press. We know that he—with George Papadopoulos, for example, as soon as Papadopoulos went to the press, he stopped trying to cooperate with Papadopoulos entirely. So, we don’t actually know.

What we do know is that, according to Trump’s own understanding of the circumstance, for whatever that’s worth, Paul Manafort is the one person who can bring him down. Now, Rick Gates has been cooperating since February, and Rick Gates knew most of what Paul Manafort knew, and Rick Gates is the only one of the many people that you said, that you described as who had already plead, who got a very sweet plea deal. I mean, he got excused from all of the financial crimes that Paul Manafort was found guilty of yesterday, some other ones in D.C. He was excused from some of his own role in the conspiracy with Russia. So, Rick Gates, as far as we know, is the one who’s offering the big cooperation. And that puts both Cohen and Paul Manafort on much shakier grounds if they believe they’re going to get a lesser sentence by cooperating with Mueller.

AMY GOODMAN: And who exactly is Lanny Davis? Which is very interesting. Michael Cohen has chosen him as his lawyer, the former Clinton legal adviser. That’s President Clinton in the 1990s, when he was president.

MARCY WHEELER: Right. But Lanny’s function here is not to be a lawyer. Cohen’s got a different lawyer, who used to work in Southern District of New York. That lawyer was picked because he knows the people who were prosecuting him in New York, and he has the ability, to the extent that it’s possible, to negotiate a plea deal. Lanny Davis’s job is to go on TV and make statements like he did yesterday. That’s really been his function for a long time now. He’s in some ways the Democratic equivalent of Paul Manafort. He’s about press these days, more than he is about lawyering.

But again, I’m not sure that working the press is going to get you a plea deal with Robert Mueller. He has made it very clear he doesn’t want any of this in the press. He doesn’t want to work via the press. He’s been unbelievably good at not leaking anything. And so, hiring a Democratic lawyer to go and appear on TV and make allegations about the president isn’t necessarily going to help Cohen’s legal plight at all.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about Burr and Warner, who are heading up the Senate committee that is investigating Russian interference, saying that this might influence, what Michael Cohen has said, might want to question him? And what this means, Michael Cohen going before Congress?

MARCY WHEELER: Right. So, Cohen already testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee. And there, he said he didn’t know of any prior knowledge of the June 9th meeting. And some of the public statements that he and Lanny Davis have made seem to contradict that. And so, yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the wake of this plea deal, basically contacted his lawyers and said, “Does his prior testimony before the committee—does it still hold?” And they’ve threatened to call him back to test the claims that he’s made before.

You know, yeah, I’m a little bit jaded about what Richard Burr is doing here. The investigation, yes, it is credible. Yes, it is bipartisan. There are only seven people investigating it, according to public reports. They’re still working on reviewing what the Intelligence Committee knew by January 2017. So they’re not getting to the guts of whether there really was collusion. So it’s sort of Richard Burr’s job to go and test these claims, and go on TV and claim that there was no collusion, rather than to really get to the core of whether there was or not. And I think that’s more of what’s going on here than really trying to get to the bottom of things. But we will—because the Senate Intelligence Committee already got testimony from Michael Cohen, we will learn quickly whether he’s backing off his prior testimony because of yesterday’s move.

AMY GOODMAN: Right, and might want to get more testimony from him. But I’d like to turn to Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, who said in a statement on Tuesday that the White House is looking increasingly like a criminal enterprise. This is Blumenthal speaking on CNN with Wolf Blitzer last night.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: We’re in a Watergate moment, where the two parties have to come together. We need bipartisanship now more than ever, to protect the special counsel and to stop—and I must underscore stop—any consideration of pardons, which undoubtedly will be another—

WOLF BLITZER: President has a right to pardon Paul Manafort, for example, if he wanted to.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: He has the power to pardon Paul Manafort, but he would be screaming to the world, “I am guilty.” And he would so undermine the credibility of his office that it would be a disaster for the nation. And it would very possibly be an obstruction of justice, because he would be misusing that power to protect himself as a target of that investigation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Senator Blumenthal speaking on CNN. Marcy Wheeler, the possibility of pardoning Manafort and Michael Cohen—and/or Michael Cohen?

MARCY WHEELER: Right, and Cohen, this morning, is already out saying he won’t take a pardon, which I doubt, but that’s what he’s saying, or Lanny Davis is saying on TV. Back in January or February, The New York Times actually reported that Trump had preemptively offered both Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort pardons. And a lot of what has happened in the Manafort case, you sort of have to believe that, because yesterday’s verdicts were not a surprise. The case was overwhelming against him. And so it was sort of suicidal for him to go through trial, because his sentence will be much stiffer—I mean, just as a comparison, as you said, he is expected to get at least 10 years, whereas Cohen is going to get five or fewer. Similar kinds of crimes, right? So, for having gone to trial, Manafort is going to get twice the sentence. And so, one of the most logical explanations for that is he’s expecting a pardon.

But because Mueller already knows—in fact, this is one of the questions that he wants to ask Trump, apparently—Mueller already knows that this pardon has been offered preemptively, I think that that would count as obstruction of justice. It’s also not that easy to do well. The last time we were in this kind of situation, George Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence right when he was about to go to prison. And that meant that Libby wasn’t going to prison, but also still retained his Fifth Amendment privilege against testimony. That’s the kind of thing he would have to do with Manafort. And it’s not clear that that would be enough to silence Manafort going forward, because if he pardons Manafort today, then Manafort—depending on how broad the pardon is, then Manafort can be asked to testify, without incriminating himself, on the Russia stuff, which is what Trump has already said is what Manafort is most threatening to him for. So, it’s sort of hard to do. It’s unclear whether he will do—I mean, he’s pardoning everyone anyway, but it’s not clear that that’s going to achieve the objectives that he really wants, which is to skate free of what he himself has done with the conspiracy to win the election—

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Marcy—

MARCY WHEELER: —with multiple, now, we can say—

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. “We can say”?

MARCY WHEELER: Sorry—with multiple conspiracies. I mean, there’s the conspiracy to silence the women and the conspiracy to work with Russia to win the election. So now we can speak in multiple terms.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s current personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, said in a statement, “There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the President in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen. It is clear that as the prosecutor noted Mr. Cohen’s actions reflect a pattern of lies and dishonesty over a significant period of time.” On Sunday, Giuliani appeared on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd to defend President Trump.

RUDY GIULIANI: What I have to tell you is, look, I’m not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well, that’s so silly, because it’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth. He didn’t have a conversation about—

CHUCK TODD: Truth is truth. I don’t mean to go like—

RUDY GIULIANI: No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth. The president of the United States says, “I didn’t”—

CHUCK TODD: “Truth isn’t truth”? Mr. Mayor, do you realize what—I mean—

RUDY GIULIANI: No, no, no. What—

CHUCK TODD: This is going to become a bad meme.

RUDY GIULIANI: Don’t—don’t do—don’t do—don’t do this to me.

CHUCK TODD: Don’t do “Truth isn’t truth” to me.

RUDY GIULIANI: Donald Trump—Donald Trump says, “I didn’t talk about Flynn with Comey.” Comey says, “You did talk about it.” So tell me what the truth is.

AMY GOODMAN: Rudy Giuliani saying, “Truth is not truth.” But, Marcy Wheeler, I want to go a step further, to this issue of impeachment and what can happen here. We are so close, 11 weeks away from the midterm elections. Also, you know, Brett Kavanaugh, they’re trying to push him through before the election, the possibility of a flipping of the House or the Senate or the House and the Senate. But what about this possibility of impeachment?

MARCY WHEELER: Well, we don’t know. I mean, Rudy Giuliani, both of those clips are him playing games. Neither of those are credible. It’s not clear he even understands the legal risk that the president is under. He really should stop being invited on TV to go and just play with the press, because he’s not providing any news or anything credible. But Mueller knows that. Mueller knows that Rudy is playing games. Mueller knows that Rudy is trying to stall. Mueller knows that Rudy is trying to stall long enough to get Kavanaugh confirmed. And so we don’t know, and Mueller is not telling, what he plans to do in response.

One of the things that was interesting and less newsworthy yesterday is he extended the cooperation, the continuation of Mike Flynn’s sentencing, but only until September 17th, which is shorter than any of the other extensions, continuations. And so that suggests that Mueller has got some things up his sleeve in the next 24 days. And I wouldn’t be so surprised to expect some major moves from Mueller, while Rudy is on TV kind of playing with the press and uttering nonsense. So, we don’t know what’s going to happen. I’m sure Mueller recognizes the risk of the stall games that Rudy and Trump are trying to play. I guess we just wait to see how Mueller is going to respond to that.

AMY GOODMAN: Marcy, before we end, I wanted to ask you about your personal connection to the Mueller probe. Last month, you wrote, quote, “Sometime last year, I went to the FBI and provided information on a person whom I had come to believe had played a significant role in the Russian election attack on the US.” This led you to being a witness in special counsel Mueller’s investigation. Explain.

MARCY WHEELER: Sort of. I went to the FBI about something that was not part of the Mueller investigation. And as I understand it, it subsequently got moved under the Mueller investigation. So, yeah, I’ve got a little bit of insight into things that are not yet public about people unrelated to Trump. I did, in that post, note that the person in question knew what Trump was doing within 15 hours of the polls closing last year—or, in 2016, after the election. But beyond that, I can’t really explain what the person that I went to the FBI about did. It just—it does lead me to believe that there are a lot of things about the Mueller inquiry, or the things that are now under Mueller’s investigation, that people just aren’t aware of in public and that I think will surprise people.

AMY GOODMAN: And did you reveal your sources to him? Explain further what you did explain publicly.

MARCY WHEELER: I went and talked to the FBI about something that I believed this source had done, roles that I believed he had played in the election. And I did that—the way I did it was, in part, an effort to protect my other sources and to protect my readers, because I believed if I had not done that, the FBI would come and start getting call records for everyone who goes to my site. I went to them, and I said, “You can have this, but you can’t—you know, I’m not going to talk to you about any of my other sources or any other journalists or what have you.” So, it was sort of a preemptive effort to stop what I viewed as somebody doing ongoing damage, without impacting my other equities, I guess. So, we’ll see whether I made the right decision, but I—

AMY GOODMAN: So, originally, he was a source, and then you came to be—

MARCY WHEELER: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —very concerned about him, and so told the FBI who he was.

MARCY WHEELER: Correct.

AMY GOODMAN: And he, you believe—what was it that he did, that you felt needed to be exposed?

MARCY WHEELER: Yeah, I’m not going to say that. I think it’ll—you know, it’ll become clear in the future. But it was just—it was clear at the time I made the decision to go to the FBI that he was engaged in ongoing serious damage and hurting other people, and hurting innocent people. So I felt like I could not stay silent about that any longer. But I also felt like I couldn’t go to the press. I couldn’t just publish it, because, in my understanding, that would probably exacerbate things. It would lead him to do something unreasonable, and it might lead to increasing the damage rather than decreasing it.