RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How to Reform the Pardon Power Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53468"><span class="small">Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare</span></a>   
Thursday, 27 February 2020 13:52

Excerpt: "President Trump is reportedly 'obsessed' with the pardon power, which he apparently understands to be the unbounded constitutional authority to dispense forgiveness as he pleases."

President Trump. (photo: Shealah Craighead/White House)
President Trump. (photo: Shealah Craighead/White House)


How to Reform the Pardon Power

By Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare

27 February 20

 

resident Trump is reportedly “obsessed” with the pardon power, which he apparently understands to be the unbounded constitutional authority to dispense forgiveness as he pleases. In his recent rash of 11 pardons and commutations, Trump dispensed with the Department of Justice process for vetting pardon applications and relied instead on the advice of friends and allies, and on his own judgments about redressing “unfairness.” He has also argued he has an “absolute right to PARDON myself” (while at the same time denying the need to do so). Trump revels in the belief that his pardon and commutation decisions are his alone: His critics might not like his choices, but they have to live with them.

Trump is not alone in his sweeping view of the pardon power. Decades ago, the Department of Justice advised Congress that “[i]n the exercise of the pardoning power, the president is amenable only to the dictates of his own conscience, unhampered and uncontrolled by any person or branch of government.” Woodrow Wilson’s attorney general framed the power in similarly grandiose terms, as “not subject to the control or supervision of anyone.” The courts have seemingly endorsed these constitutional judgments, referring to the pardon power as “unlimited” and deeming Congress unable in any way to “limit the effect of [a] pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.”

So, it appears, lawmakers unhappy with grants of clemency are left to voice dissatisfaction and to press the president to explain. And in the past, that is what they have done. After pardoning Richard Nixon, President Gerald Ford made an extraordinary appearance on the Hill to defend his decision. The Senate and House inquired into Bill Clinton’s history of controversial pardons and, in some cases, voted resolutions of bipartisan disapproval. But, barring a constitutional amendment, many people appear to believe that Congress can do nothing more to regulate the president’s “absolute” pardon power.

We disagree. As we discuss in detail in a forthcoming book on institutional reforms of the presidency, there are limits Congress may and should impose on at least some exercises of the pardon power. And by prescribing those limits, the legislature can prevent or deter the most egregious abuses, while encouraging future presidents to adhere more closely to norms of process and restraint.

Begin with the constitutional text, which grants presidents the “Power to grant reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The power covers only federal offenses and excludes the ability to pardon away an impeachment. But these are not the only limits.

A pardon or commutation may be “absolute” for the beneficiary. But it would not in any way afford the president, as the grantor, immunity from commission of a crime in connection with granting a pardon, nor would it cover any such separate crime committed by the grantee. Congress could, for example, make it a crime for the president and the grantee to engage in a bribery scheme in which the grantee makes a personal payment or campaign contribution as part of an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. The president’s subsequent pardon or commutation would remain fully in effect for the offense pardoned, in accordance with the Pardon Clause. But the law would apply to the independent criminal acts committed by the president and the grantee in the course of reaching an illegal agreement about the terms on which a pardon would be granted. Congress can similarly criminalize the use of the pardon to undermine a judicial proceeding, which the president might do by offering it as a means of inducing false testimony.

It is unclear whether the current obstruction of justice and anti-bribery statutes already criminalize these and related presidential acts. To resolve any doubts, Congress should make it an express crime for a president to offer to sell, or to sell, a pardon for personal financial benefit or a campaign contribution, or for the benefit of an immediate family member—or to use a pardon, or offer one, in a corrupt scheme to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

Congress should also make clear that a self-pardon is not allowed and cannot be the basis for immunity from federal criminal investigation or prosecution. The matter is legally unsettled. No president has ever tried to pardon himself, neither constitutional text nor judicial opinions speak overtly to the issue, and scholars are sharply divided.

There are cross-cutting but inclusive hints in the Constitution. On the one hand, the express limits on the pardon power (to federal crimes and excluding impeachment) might imply that there are no other limits, and the exception for impeachment might imply, as Andrew McCarthy noted, that “the Framers understood they were permitting the president to pardon himself” for crimes. On the other hand, Article I of the Constitution states that a person convicted after impeachment “shall nevertheless” be subject to a subsequent criminal trial; the Article II specification that the president has power to “grant [a] pardon” might imply a bilateral relationship that is absent from self-pardons; and the Take Care Clause might preclude the president from excluding himself from the reach of law enforcement. This latter idea might have been what the Office of Legal Counsel meant when in 1974 it wrote, sententiously and with little reasoning, that self-pardons would “seem” to be disallowed “[u]nder the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.”

In the face of this uncertainty, Congress’s constitutional judgment can matter a lot, both in informing subsequent judicial review of a self-pardon and in giving a president pause about issuing one in the first place. And, of course, any president is on notice that since 1974 the official Justice Department view has been that self-pardons are constitutionally problematic.

These proposed reforms are not ruled out by the strong formulations of the pardon power found in some old Supreme Court cases. Key cases often cited for the proposition that the pardon power is absolute were resolved on other grounds and are thus technically not binding precedent. Other decisions contained sweeping statements of presidential power that went beyond what was required to decide the particular matter before the Supreme Court. Congress has much more room to regulate abuses of the pardon power than is commonly assumed.

The proposed reform legislation will not solve every form of pardon abuse. It cannot stop a president from pardoning family members, friends or allies—a practice that did not start with Trump. But it can lay down a marker that the pardon power is not “absolute.” And it could be a tonic for crumbling norms of restraint. It is not healthy for a president, especially the current one, to think of any power as absolute except for possible political penalties. A president who understands that certain pardons or commutations implicate criminal liability may be more inclined to turn to legal advisers in cases that present the reality or appearance of self-dealing. And perhaps more importantly, the legal advisers the president turns to might be more constrained themselves, and constraining of the president, since they will worry more about aiding and abetting presidential crimes.

It might seem fanciful, especially after the Senate acquittal in Trump’s impeachment trial, to believe that the legislation we propose can receive adequate Republican support to overcome a certain veto from this president. This may be so. But it is also true that many Republicans in Congress stood up to the president when he threatened to fire Robert Mueller, and many have voted to oppose the president’s military support to Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen and any further uses of force against Iran. Trump has issued a steady and increasingly controversial series of pardons, and he has hinted at many more to come. These actions—especially if they cross into the areas described above—threaten core rule-of-law values.

Are there not a few dozen Republicans in Congress committed enough to basic constitutional restraints to criminalize such extreme abuses of presidential power? If not, the enactment of limits on the pardon power should remain one of the action items on an agenda for reform of the presidency after Trump leaves the scene.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN | Bernie Organizers: Make Super Tuesday a Get-Out-the-Vote Holiday Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26125"><span class="small">Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 27 February 2020 12:40

Simpich writes: "All around the USA, we can make Super Tuesday a Get-Out-the-Vote holiday. Many of us can get paid for it."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Bridget Bennett/The New York Times)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Bridget Bennett/The New York Times)


Bernie Organizers: Make Super Tuesday a Get-Out-the-Vote Holiday

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

27 February 20

 

ll around the USA, we can make Super Tuesday a Get-Out-the-Vote holiday.   

Many of us can get paid for it.

Did you know that most of the Super Tuesday states mandate that the voter be given time off work to vote?  

Furthermore, half of the Super Tuesday states mandate that employers provide their employees two or more hours of paid time to vote.  

Whether or not we can shake the cash from our bosses’ pockets, let’s roll up our sleeves and transform this country in an unprecedented act of American solidarity.   

Nationally, the primaries are going to suffer from voter suppression techniques aimed at people of color, independent voters, and students.  

In California, the 5.5 million voters of Los Angeles — and millions of others in fourteen other counties — are urged to study their voter packets due to their new Vote Centers. By ending the use of neighborhood polling stations, these centers will make voting easier for some and cause great confusion for others.   

Here are a number of ways Bernie organizers can maximize the vote in a sometimes-difficult situation. All of us should take on at least one of the roles set out below.

Early voting is available almost everywhere in the USA between now and Tuesday. When more of us vote early, we create room at the polls for someone else we don’t know who can only vote on Tuesday. Here is a list on how to vote for Bernie in every state of the country.

In California, you can now register and vote any day up to and including Super Tuesday at your county elections office, voting center, or polling location. This polling place lookup tool provides local polling locations and times. For any questions, the California voter hotline number is 818 / 856-5083.

Phone banking and door-to-door canvassing. These two tools are essential in getting out the vote. Your local Bernie organization can find the right fit and the right spot for you.

Election observers are needed. Someone has to make sure the poll workers get it right — and help the voters get it right.  Stand “close enough” to watch the poll workers and adroitly provide your observations to the right people. Stand “far enough away” from the polls with a colorful sign and leaflets for the voters.

Campaign supporters are needed. We need people who can get other people to the polls — or even to a mailbox. We need people who can bring food and water to voters waiting in line. In the words of my election warrior sister, Ida Martinac, “Everything we love is on the line!”

Fight like hell to get a ballot to vote for Bernie. See this state-to-state guide to figure out how to do it for both Super Tuesday and the general election in November.

Californians can register, re-register, update their registration, and check their registration here. Again, use this polling place lookup tool to find your local polling location. 

Are you an independent voter? Many states allow independent voters to vote for Bernie even though he is running on the Democratic line.

In California, independents are called “no party preference” or NPP voters. NPP voters have to request a Democratic crossover ballot in order to vote for President.  

Thanks to a new California law, NPP voters can now go to the polls and should be able to cast a ballot that enables them to vote for Bernie and maybe even have it counted that day!  

In California, due to popular pressure, an urgency statute was passed two weeks ago that will enable no party preference voters to vote for Bernie and those who have changed their address to make a written request as late as Super Tuesday itself at the voting locations provided at this website. This urgency statute, in many cases, will mean that these voters will be able to cast a non-provisional ballot that will be counted on election night. 

If you received a VBM ballot and want to cast it personally to ensure it is counted on election night, play it safe and bring your ballot and envelope to the polls, even though this precaution may not be required under the new rules.

If necessary, cast a provisional ballot. Casting a provisional ballot is an emergency measure that is better than not voting at all. Most provisional ballots are eventually counted, although well after Super Tuesday. Track your ballot and make sure they count it.

Working to make this very-troubled election happen is an act of solidarity, which brings to mind a very short story.

When Bernie came to Richmond, California, last week my friend’s band, Phat Luv, opened for the campaign event. A mostly African American group, they played Grand Funk Railroad’s “We’re an American Band” — changing the chorus to “We Are a Socialist Band!”   

Never in my life have I ever heard an African American even mention Grand Funk Railroad — struggling white kids from Michigan who sold out Shea Stadium in the ’70s faster than the Beatles. I doubt that the elite critics who run the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame will ever let the scruffy Grand Funk inside its gates.  Meanwhile, these black musicians honor this largely-forgotten legacy of the white working class — and they most definitely brought the funk.

In the midst of some of the darkest days of the Republic, a new spirit of solidarity is sweeping this land. People are reaching out to support someone they don’t know. Are these the first signs of an American renewal? A fundamental realignment? A Second Republic?



Bill Simpich is a California civil rights attorney and a member of Ballots for Bernie. For more, visit Ballots for Bernie on Facebook.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
5 Ways William Barr Is Turning America Into a Dictatorship Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39255"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 February 2020 14:15

Reich writes: "William Barr was installed as Attorney General specifically to turn the Department of Justice into an arm of the Trump Coverup. And we've seen him do exactly that."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


5 Ways William Barr Is Turning America Into a Dictatorship

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website

26 February 20

 

illiam Barr was installed as Attorney General specifically to turn the Department of Justice into an arm of the Trump Coverup. And we’ve seen him do exactly that. Barr has corrupted and politicized the Department of Justice, working hand in hand with Donald Trump to bend federal law enforcement to the president’s will. Here are some of the ways Barr is helping Trump turn our democracy into a dictatorship:

1. He intervened in the sentencing of Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime confidant and advisor, who faced a prison sentence for obstructing Congress and witness tampering in connection with the Russia investigation. The day prosecutors announced they were seeking seven to nine years for Stone’s sentencing, Trump called the sentence “a horrible aberration,” and said that the prosecutors “ought to be ashamed of themselves” and were “an insult to our country.”  A mere 24 hours later, after Trump’s public tantrum, the Department of Justice announced it would change its sentencing recommendation for Stone [CUT TO NEWS CLIP]. Showing more backbone than Barr, four career prosecutors then withdrew from the case, and one resigned.

The incident caused such an uproar that Barr was forced to declare that he wouldn’t be “bullied” and that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible to do my job.” But anyone who has watched Barr repeatedly roll over for Trump saw this as a minimal face-saving gesture. For example:

2. Barr has green-lit an “intake process” for any information that Trump stooge Rudy Giuliani may dig up about Ukraine and the elections. That’s right. Barr has given Trump’s personal lawyer, who is under a Justice Department investigation that has led to charges against two of his associates, a direct line to the Justice Department to funnel dirt about Trump’s political rivals.

3. Barr misled the public about the contents of the Mueller report. Before the report was released, Barr sent a memo to Congress “summarizing” its findings. In his memo, Barr claimed there was insufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case and supported Trump’s claims of “total exoneration”. Robert Mueller was so infuriated by Barr’s misrepresentation of his findings that he wrote a letter complaining that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s investigation. Barr nonetheless held a press conference reiterating his own claims, bolstering Trump’s narrative of “total exoneration,” and shifting the media coverage of the report.

4. Barr refused to accept the findings of the Inspector General report investigating the origins of the Russia probe. In December, Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his report, finding that while the Russia probe was flawed in some aspects, there was no evidence of political bias and it was justified. This, of course, contradicts Trump’s narrative that the Russia probe was launched by deep-state partisan hacks determined to take him down. The day the report was released, Barr called the Russia investigation a “travesty” and claimed that there were “gross abuses …and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI” and that he thought “there was bad faith" in the investigation. It’s unprecedented for the Attorney General to so vehemently disagree with the findings of an impartial Inspector General.

5. Barr buried the whistleblower complaint that kick-started the impeachment inquiry and tried to keep it from reaching Congress. His Justice Department investigated the contents of the complaint within a narrow scope and wrapped up its investigation within a mere three weeks, finding no evidence of wrongdoing. Yet again, Barr was running interference to shield Trump from accountability.

Trump says he has the “legal right” to meddle in cases handled by the Justice Department.

That’s wrong. If a president can punish enemies and reward friends through the administration of justice, there can be no justice. Justice requires impartial and equal treatment under the law. Partiality or inequality in deciding whom to prosecute and how to punish is tyranny. Plain and simple.

A half-century ago I witnessed the near dissolution of justice under President Nixon. I served in the Justice Department when a bipartisan Congress resolved that what had occurred would never happen again. But what occurred under Nixon is happening again. Like Nixon, Trump has usurped the independence of the Department of Justice for his own ends.

But unlike Nixon, Trump won’t resign. He has too many enablers – not just a shameful Attorney General but also shameless congressional Republicans – who place a lower priority on justice than on satisfying the most vindictive and paranoid occupant of the White House in modern American history.

One ABC News interview, conducted only to give the appearance of impartiality, doesn’t make up for the myriad ways Attorney General Bill Barr has corrupted the Justice Department and willfully abetted Trump’s lawlessness. For the sake of our democracy, he must resign immediately.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Flailing Incompetence Makes Coronavirus Even Scarier Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=33430"><span class="small">Matthew Yglesias, Vox</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 February 2020 14:15

Yglesias writes: "America's pandemic response capabilities have been systematically dismantled."

American officials began a complex evacuation procedure for 328 passengers aboard the Diamond Princess on Sunday night. (photo: Franck Robichon/EPA)
American officials began a complex evacuation procedure for 328 passengers aboard the Diamond Princess on Sunday night. (photo: Franck Robichon/EPA)


Trump's Flailing Incompetence Makes Coronavirus Even Scarier

By Matthew Yglesias, Vox

26 February 20


America’s pandemic response capabilities have been systematically dismantled.

ate last week, the US government overruled objections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to put 14 coronavirus-infected Americans on an airplane with other healthy people.

The Trump administration swiftly leaked that the president was mad about this decision, and that nobody told him about it at the time. That could be true (or not — Trump and his team lie about things all the time). But even if it is true, it’s a confession of a stunning level of incompetence. The president is so checked out that he’s not in the loop even on critical decisions and is making excuses for himself after the fact.

Resolving interagency disagreements is his job. But Trump has never shown any real interest or aptitude for his job, something that used to loom large as an alarming aspect of his administration. That fear has faded into the background now that the US has gone years without many major domestic crises (the disasters and failed response in Puerto Rico being a big exception).

The Covid-19 outbreak, however, is a reminder that it remains a scary world and that the American government deals with a lot of important, complicated challenges that aren’t particularly ideological in nature. And we have no reason to believe the current president is up to the job. Trump not only hasn’t personally involved himself in the details of coronavirus response (apparently too busy pardoning former Celebrity Apprentice guests), he also hasn’t designated anyone to be in charge.

Infectious disease response necessarily involves balancing a range of considerations from throughout government public health agencies and critical aspects of economic and foreign policy. That’s why in fall 2014, the Obama administration appointed Ron Klain to serve as “Ebola czar” — a single official in charge of coordinating the response across the government. Trump has, so far, put nobody in charge, even though it’s already clear that because of the coronavirus’s effect on major Asian economies, the virus is going to be a bigger deal for Americans.

The Trump administration has asked Congress for $2.5 billion in emergency funding to fight the outbreak. But this is just a fig leaf. The reality is this administration keeps trying to — and at times does — slash funding for relevant government programs.

Trump keeps slashing pandemic response

In 2005, during the H1N5 bird flu scare, the US Agency for International Development ran a program called Predict to identify and research infectious diseases in animal populations in the developing world. Most new viruses that impact humans — apparently including the one causing the Covid-19 disease — emerge through this route, so investing in early research is the kind of thing that, at modest ongoing cost, served to reduce the likelihood of rare but catastrophic events.

The program was initiated under George W. Bush and continued through Barack Obama’s eight years in office; then, last fall the Trump administration shut it down.

That’s part of a broader pattern of actual and potential Trump efforts to shut down America’s ability to respond to pandemic disease.

As it happens, the Covid-19 problem arose from China, rather than from Africa, where the programs Trump shut down were working. But now that containment in China seems to have failed, the next big global risk is that the virus will spread to countries that have weaker public health infrastructure, from which it will spread uncontrollably — exactly the sort of countries where Trump has scaled back assistance.

Meanwhile, to the extent Trump has done anything in the midst of the crisis, his predominant focus seems to have been on reassuring financial markets, rather than on addressing the public health issue.

Trump picked a strange time to turn globalist

Austria, which borders northern Italy, is looking at reimposing border controls in light of the Covid-19 outbreak in several towns near Milan. Israel has taken action to bar all foreign nationals who have been to South Korea and Japan in the past 14 days from entering the country — adding to an existing ban on visitors from China.

The Israeli response, so far, is a bit of an outlier and perhaps has gone too far.

Still, it’s a bit strange that Donald Trump of all people has done so little to restrict travel at this point — you can book a direct flight from Beijing to Los Angeles tomorrow for $680 while Trump is busy expanding his anti-Muslim travel ban and crippling refugee resettlement based on made-up terrorism concerns.

Trump’s only public statements about this growing crisis are a weeks-old series of tweets in which he expressed confidence in Chinese leadership and said the problem would go away when the weather gets warmer. (Scientists say that may not be true.)

Now that the stock market is potentially crashing on coronavirus fears, maybe Trump will try to rouse himself to do something rather than underreacting for the sake of the Dow. But the biggest problem with Trump is it’s far from clear he really can pull himself together to do the job.

Trump is busy corrupting the American government

Over the past week, when the breakdown of some containment measures became known, Trump was busy replacing his director of national intelligence with an unqualified political hack who will also simultaneously serve as ambassador to Germany. It’s bad to have unqualified people in key roles, but the reason Trump did it is worse — Richard Grenell was installed after his predecessor Joseph Maguire got fired for briefing Congress about intelligence regarding Russian activities and the 2020 presidential election.

Trump felt the contents of Maguire’s briefing were politically embarrassing to him, and therefore wanted the information withheld.

That’s typical of Trump’s approach to governance — he sees the entire executive branch as essentially his personal staff, whose only obligation is to advance his personal interests.

But in a crisis, it can be good for the country for embarrassing information to come to light if that’s what it takes to provoke a stronger and more accurate response. Trump, however, has clearly signaled he does not think this is the right way to do things. Consequently, in the middle of the crisis, Trump’s national security adviser went on Sunday shows to smear Sen. Bernie Sanders, rather than provide credible information about the international situation to the public.

Trump is also busy having his Customs and Border Protection officials wield airport security as a tactical weapon against the population of New York when these are the people who we’ll need to screen travelers.

More broadly, Trump has a well-deserved reputation for dishonesty and has acted over the years to clean house of any officials (James Mattis, Dan Coats, etc.) who develop a reputation for contradicting him. It’s almost impossible to know how this administration could convey accurate and credible information to Americans in a crisis even if it wanted to.

The country has thus far muddled through with Trump at the helm better than Americans had any right to hope, but the emergence of the occasional crisis is a constant in government. And with the world on the brink of a potential disaster, it’s terrifying to contemplate the reality that the man in charge just isn’t up to the job.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: "I Haven't Exhaled in So Long": Rose McGowan on Harvey Weinstein Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46386"><span class="small">Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 February 2020 13:19

Farrow writes: "On Monday, a Manhattan jury convicted Harvey Weinstein of sex crimes, and the Hollywood producer was remanded to police custody, where he awaits a sentence that could total more than twenty-five years in prison."

For the actress Rose McGowan and many of the other women who have publicly accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment or assault, his conviction comes after years of frustration (photo: John Lamparski/Getty)
For the actress Rose McGowan and many of the other women who have publicly accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment or assault, his conviction comes after years of frustration (photo: John Lamparski/Getty)


"I Haven't Exhaled in So Long": Rose McGowan on Harvey Weinstein

By Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker

26 February 20


Rose McGowan on what it felt like to watch the convicted predator be taken into police custody after being found guilty of sex crimes.

n Monday, a Manhattan jury convicted Harvey Weinstein of sex crimes, and the Hollywood producer was remanded to police custody, where he awaits a sentence that could total more than twenty-five years in prison. Weinstein was found guilty of rape in the third degree against Jessica Mann, a former aspiring actress, and a criminal sex act in the first degree against Miriam Haley (formerly known as Mimi Haleyi), a former “Project Runway” production assistant, who claims that he forcibly performed oral sex on her. Weinstein will be sentenced on March 11th. He also awaits trial on separate charges in Los Angeles. Paul Thompson, the Los Angeles deputy district attorney, told me, “We are definitely proceeding.”

For many of the more than ninety women who have publicly accused Weinstein of sexual harassment or assault, the New York trial comes after years of frustration. For decades, Weinstein had been trailed by allegations of misconduct. In 2015, the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, dropped an effort to charge him, under pressure from Weinstein’s attorneys. One of the first women to speak publicly about Weinstein was the actress Rose McGowan, who alleges that the producer assaulted her in 1997, during the Sundance Film Festival. In 2016, she tweeted that she had been raped by an unnamed studio head. Several months later, she was among the first accusers to go on the record for my reporting. Her story also appears in my book, “Catch and Kill.” Hours after the jury announced its verdict, McGowan agreed to be interviewed for The New Yorker and a forthcoming episode of the podcast based on my book. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the impact of the decision on McGowan and other victims, and also on the #MeToo movement.

First of all, I often begin our conversations this way: How are you, Rose?

And I always, I think, answer, “Well, it’s another day in the twilight zone.” Which it is, but today it’s interesting. I’ve had to have this hardness that’s not native to me, to do what I had to do to cause the cultural reset that I wanted, to get the results I wanted—not like we’re talking about with the case today.

But what I feel connected with today by this verdict and what’s happened—I feel like the soft girl that I was before I walked into that room. The other day, someone asked, “What do you hope for?” I looked at them and I said, “I don’t. I don’t have—I don’t hope.” It’s not that I’m not optimistic. I just—it’s not part of my lexicon. Hope. What’s the point? What’s the goal? Survival—that’s my goal. But today I have this tiny feeling of, like, this little chrysalis opening in my heart and my chest right now that’s, like, I think it feels like that girl that walked in that room to be raped by Weinstein, you know, at ten in the morning.

Just going back to today. What has it been like for you? You said “twilight zone.” So what does that mean?

Today, today feels .?.?. I haven’t exhaled in so long.

And I know that every woman who has been affected by him and everybody who’s ever been affected by this period had this kind of collected breath held, right? And this is not a referendum on #MeToo, you know, which Tarana created as a language tool, right? “This happened to me, too”—that’s what it is.

Tarana Burke, the activist, who has been using this term for years.

Right. Of course, my thing was always quite different. I wanted a cultural reset. And I wanted it to happen a lot faster than what people were doing. And I also wanted to take out some trash.

And does this verdict bring you closer to any of those goals?

Well, the cultural reset already happened. That’s happened. I think this is like there’s two separate things going on for me. There’s the bigger, more macro, above-it-all goal that I had personally, as an activist and a fighter. And then, for the one who was hurt by him and has had to deal with seeing his face, like all his other victims.

This person was compulsive—is compulsive—you know. It’s pretty amazing to have one less rapist on the street, though. Especially a super rapist, like, head rapist in charge. Like, “I know I’m gonna be the Oscar winner of rapists. That’s what I’m going to be.”

You know better than most people how immovable the status quo can seem sometimes. So I can imagine that this was not necessarily the outcome you were expecting.

No. I was honestly shocked. And I’m still quite shocked, pleasantly, of course, because the other alternative is misery.

To see women sitting across from and accusing a man who was so insulated from accountability for so long.

It’s mind-boggling the kind of pathos and the level of dedication to rape that that man had. I mean, wow. That’s like, Wow, you’re really taking a hobby seriously. Actually, it was almost like the movies were the hobby, and this was, like, you know, it was like a rape factory.

So you looked at your phone this morning. You braced for the worst. And then, when you saw what had happened, what went through your mind?

Honestly, joy. And then I thought, I wonder if he’s gonna hire a hit man to kill me? That was my other thought. And then I thought, Should I have coffee this morning?

I think it’s a rejection, in some ways, of Donna Rotunno, the lawyer—I mean, that narrative.

Donna Rotunno, the attorney for Weinstein who said that she’d never put herself in the position to be sexually assaulted and who has made all these statements sort of inflected with the language of the alt-right, men’s-rights type of movement.

It’s a dog whistle. It’s the same thing that an alt-right person does about race or about Jews. That’s what she’s doing about women. And how’s that working out for you today, bitch?

You often found yourself telling things to the culture that, I think, to use a phrase you gave me, the culture wasn’t ready to hear.

I don’t think they’re ready. I don’t think anyone’s ever ready. I think they didn’t want to, but you have to get to a point where you’re, like, “I don’t care. Take your medicine.”

“Yeah, sorry. People are getting raped, people are getting killed. Women are dying. Boys are getting molested. We don’t have time. I know you’re uncomfortable. And this might make you examine some icky feelings you have inside and maybe something you’ve done or heard about, or maybe it was you, you know.” But, I think, if society is walking around with a festering sore on its leg, and the only thing they do is pull their pant leg down farther, that’s a very sick society. And I just thought, What is activism? I could sit there and join an organization and, like, fight for women’s rights, or I could just take a big sword, cut off the head of power, and be, like, See? This is how it’s done.

Sometimes you have to lay on barbed wire so others can walk on your back. And that’s O.K. Because I can take it. It doesn’t make it fun. I honestly didn’t know if I’d survive it at one point.

We are both people who believe in the power of storytelling, including in cinema, to do a lot of good in the world for the culture. And yet, you’re right, we are also people who have grown up knowing a lot about the dark side of all of that and wanting it to be better, and to mistreat people less and to damage the culture less.

That’s it, it’s just, like, damage the culture less. If you are a gatekeeper of thought, you have to be really careful with what you’re putting into people’s heads. We have our social responsibility. It doesn’t mean everything has to be, like, some weighty tome or, you know, an Oscar kind of film, but put thought into what you do. Think about it. Don’t send a script to someone where the woman is carrying a laundry basket in every scene but never does the fucking laundry. Knock it off. It’s pretty basic. And it’s not that complicated to be better. The way I raised myself, when I was a runaway—I didn’t know how, and I knew I had to raise myself, living on my own since fifteen. I would just imagine what the best version of me would be. What would the most awesome version of me do? And I’m gonna imitate that. I was, like, Well, that’s probably what I should do. So I would just act as if, and then it would come true.

So you spent this time as a runaway, escaping from abusive situations, hardening yourself to those kinds of situations, developing defense mechanisms. And then you’re successful, and it’s exciting, but also Sundance ’97 happens. What was that like? How did that change your life?

We hear a lot about rape victims feeling guilt and shame. I never felt guilt or shame. Because I know I didn’t do it. It was so clear-cut. I luckily didn’t have to unpack that part of it. It was so clear-cut what was happening. I was at a breakfast meeting, and this happened. I was not on a date with this person.

It altered my life in such a monstrous way. Because also, at this point, I was already well known. I was already quite well known, and I had done a movie. I was making a billion dollars for his company. So I was quite well known, and now all of a sudden you get raped and blacklisted. So then what do you do? What job do you go get? You’re trapped. You’re stuck. You know, and that day was a terrible fucking day.

From the first interview we had, one of the most chilling things—as brutal as the description of physical violence was—was the system you described. You saying that it had felt, from the beginning, like a well-oiled machine, that there were people who wouldn’t meet your eye, in your view, because they knew this was part of a pattern.

Yes, it is. The system is rigged. And it’s rigged against us, the public. You know, I am a member of the public, too. And so are you. It’s rigged against all of us, some more than others, and the fact is that you have to think, like, Holy shit. We’re over a known count of a hundred. But, God, what if we were black women? How many would that take in Hollywood? Like, specifically, if it was him and only black women? Would that have ever been uncovered?

And you went through a long period after that of being in a state that I think so many women with stories of sexual violence spend a long time in, which is either being quiet about it or not being believed when you do make noise about it. That went on for years.

I never felt dirty about it because it was so clear. But what I did see was just an unrelenting lack of choice of how to be. Even when we use the terms “victim,” “survivor.” Some people say, like, “I hate it when people say ‘victim.’ ” I’m, like, “But that’s a fact. It happened that way. You are. But also, depending on the mood or day, you’re a survivor.”

And that’s why the tragedy of all this is that he went after really talented people, like really special people. He deprived the world of a lot of amazing art. He really, really did.

You then became one of the first women to start making noise publicly about Harvey Weinstein and these allegations. I think it’s fair to say that those tweets in 2016—

Well, I knew what I was doing. I was calling all the journalists to the yard at the time.

Take me back to the day when you decided to send out those first tweets about Harvey Weinstein.

I was reading other women’s tweets of why they don’t report. And I was, like, “I’ll tell you why. When your ex-fiancé director sells your movie to your rapist to distribute.” And I had already agreed to do the movie, and the director says that I said I’d always known that. That was not true.

And I was, like, O.K., it’s time, because I was being so fucked with behind the scenes. I was writing my book at this point. They were starting to come for me, like, making bones about it. Like, Harvey’s unhappy. I’m hearing about this, I’m hearing about that. And, like, you have to lawyer up. So then I was, like, O.K., who’s gonna tell the story? Who’s gonna do it? Because everybody so far has failed. Everybody’s failed. They failed these women, but they they failed society, more importantly, and it is a monolith to go up against.

So the tweets were premeditated. Do you remember what you were doing that day?

I was in the bathtub. And I was scrolling through my timeline. It was kind of at night, I think. And maybe I was, like, These women are so brave. These people are brave; I’m gonna be brave. It’s time.

You appeared outside of the trial on Day 1. Tell me about that.

That was very surreal. I didn’t want to see him. Some of the other women stood on the side while he walked in. I think some of them said that they wanted him to look at them, and I knew he wouldn’t have. Also, I’ve just seen that face quite enough for the rest of my natural life, thank you. But in his brain, I still don’t think he thinks he’s done anything wrong, because he’s sick. My quibble, my problem was always with the rest of them who aren’t supposedly sick. What’s wrong with them? The people who are the good people. So if we have to push and sometimes maybe even proactively bully these people into being better and leave them no other choice but to be better, then that’s what you have to do sometimes. At least that’s what I thought I had to do.

Have you followed the trial, day in and day out?

I didn’t follow it day in and day out. I knew what was going to be said. I mean, it still filters in, and you hear horrible stuff, but I didn’t. Thank God, Annabella, and thank God, Mimi and Jessica. And, you know, thank God, because it’s hard as hell doing it from behind a keyboard every day, but to do it face to face—that’s a whole ’nother ball game.

Have you spoken to any other survivors during the trial?

Yeah, we’ve been on an e-mail chain.

What have those conversations been like?

I would summarize it by probably most of the women just being so used to—and I think this is not even native to Harvey Weinstein victims—just so used to being shit on by justice and having none. Even in the most, like—let’s go to Brock Turner, right? The Stanford case where he was caught red-handed, literally, and still. We were, like, a hundred of us, but it didn’t matter. What more does it take? You feel like a hundred women went to the police precinct and said, This man stole our purse. I think, likely, he’d be arrested for that. So that’s easier to believe.

Harvey Weinstein was convicted of two sex crimes, but not of the more serious predatory sexual-assault charge that would have flowed from the jury buying into the idea that he had committed more than one sex crime in the first degree and this was a pattern. Those results are complicated for a lot of people. How do you feel about it?

The ones where the relationship goes on afterward, there’s just not a history of that winning. So that’s why I was kind of, like, Why were those specific ones brought? It’s extremely difficult.

It’s extremely significant that a jury acknowledged that you can have an act of sexual violence of some kind—rape in the third degree is what they found him guilty of, which is without physical compulsion, but it is a sex crime—and also have an ongoing relationship.

For the American jury system, it’s pretty revolutionary in a lot of ways.You know that women can be married and get raped. You know you can be in a relationship and get raped by your partner—same-sex, anything, again, you know, and that is huge, actually, and I think it will be significant. . . . I was expecting him to totally walk, to be honest with you. But the good thing is that it becomes an ongoing conversation, and the legal system needs to do more and get smarter when it comes to sexual-assault cases, for sure, and how they prosecute them and how they treat the victims and what is tolerated. And the kind of defense that Donna Rotunno, his attorney, was running, you know, we’ve heard all those kinds of things forever, forever. And they’re so boring.

She’s a real throwback.

Yes, Donna Rotunno was kind of a throwback. She said this really gross thing in her closing argument—this really bothered me—it was basically, like, Oh, yeah, women have to take responsibility for their own actions.

They are. That’s why they’re here testifying. This is their action, and they’re taking responsibility and then running their lives the best they can, in a horrible situation with the choices they’re given. So they are. Not in the way you would think. But it is layered. And I hope the charges in [Los Angeles] still go through. I hope that. I’m talking to the D.A. there.

I got an on-the-record quote from Paul Thompson, the assistant district attorney, and they are proceeding with the case. If you were asked to testify in that case, would you?

Yes. I’ll see this through. I just want to take out the trash.

The most serious charge Harvey Weinstein was convicted of today, the one involving Mimi Haleyi, is about a fact pattern that is strikingly similar to your own allegation and those of several other women who say Weinstein forced oral sex on them. What was it like reading or hearing her testimony? Did you read it? I could see that being painful.

And that one is almost verbatim. Except for the structure of the room. They could say to Mimi, like, Oh, that was just oral sex. To have someone’s face where you don’t want it, in the most vulnerable place—and that face, specifically—it’s a horror show. What she had to go through, I know what she went through and what those other women went through. I know what they went through. There’s pain here. There’s trauma, there’s consequence.

But I do hope that, for Mimi, for me, for all of us, and for all the women that won’t come forward because they saw what happened to us, I hope their bodies rest a little easier tonight. I had a nightmare last night. I woke up sweating again, you know, like, I had to change my pajamas. I get night terrors still, and it’s, like, damn, man. Come on. And I’m sure the trials set stuff up, you know, the stress of it. But I’m really curious to see what will happen to the P.T.S.D. now. I don’t know; I’ve never been on this side of it. It’s a whole new world.

The term “justice” is also getting used a lot today. What does justice mean to you?

That’s a good question. Justice to me, it’s the stopping of him being able to do what he wants to do. What he wants to do is make money, be famous, and rape. So that’s some justice, yes.

This obviously is a story that’s much bigger than Hollywood. There are clearly Harvey Weinsteins in industry after industry, but it also does seem to have shaken the entertainment industry, or at least produced a lot of talk in the entertainment industry, about change. Has that happened? Do you believe it’s changed?

Do I think that all of a sudden the people out there are good people? No, but I think that they now know they’re on notice, and they have to have at least the perception of looking like good people. I think there are more people now who would be a lot less willing to go along with things, and I also, and this is kind of weird, but I’ll watch a show on Netflix or a movie, and I think, Oh, that young actress. He would have attacked her. He would have gotten her. So I’m watching people’s work and thinking, Oh, hopefully their career gets to take the natural course of what it’s meant to be for them. You know, without being interrupted by a monster who’s a trash compactor and eating every piece of thing around that he can swallow.

What do you think this trial, this verdict means for broader efforts to hold powerful people accused of terrible crimes accountable?

I think it shows that it can be done. And you know who that showed it to? Me. Because I didn’t know that. Because I had no evidence. No reason to, no hope. But there’s millions and millions and millions of people like me who are holding out hope. And maybe if this gave them one little feeling of, like, a David and Goliath kind of thing, like, I can matter. I can stand. I can count. I can point and say, “It was you, and you stole something from me, and you really shouldn’t have. You didn’t have to. This could have all gone very differently.”

What would you like the lasting impact of this whole story to be?

The lasting impact is that rape is not about sex, that this is a story of us unravelling abuse of power. And I think that has to stop.

I think what’s revolutionary is just saying things. I just can’t stand gaslighting, by anybody. Because gaslighting leads to injustice, and it leads to pain and death.

How different or similar is this to what you thought might happen, how you felt things might play out, when you sent those tweets?

I’ve seen everything. I just never saw this part. I saw up until the news came out, and then after that I was kind of in a free fall, ’cause I was, like, Oh, my God, I’ve worked for twenty-some years to get to this point. Now what do I do? And I’m still not free-falling, but I’m still, like, Oh, now what? I can only vaguely remember what life was like before he took over. So I’m really curious to see what it’s like from here on out.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 Next > End >>

Page 577 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN