to people who enter the us outside legal ports of entry. his claim — that the action is needed to protect the nation's borders — comes as thousands of central americans continue to make their way towards the united states. two former goldman sachs bankers and a fugitive malaysian financier have been charged in the us over the 1mdb corruption scandal that helped bring down malaysia's former government. and this story is trending on bbc.com. this is google‘s hq in california where staff walked out, joining other protests around the world. employees in various cities left their desks to show their anger at the tech giant's treatment of women and ethnic minorities. that's all. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news — it's time for hardtalk. welcome

it's time for hardtalk. to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. american politics in the year of donald trump is a polarised, partisan bearpit. usdaw there are pillars of the us system of governance, constitution, the courts, which are supposed to safeguard the liberty of all, irrespective of creed, colour, or politics. my guest today is david cole, the legal director of the american civil liberties union, the century guardian of citizens‘ writes. has the aclu the trade is mission by putting partisanship before principle in the age of trump? —— david cole, welcome to hardtalk.

thanks for having the. it seems quite clear that your organisation, the aclu, has rebooted itself to maximise its impact is in this year of donald trump. what have you done and why? i thinki of donald trump. what have you done and why? i think i first thing that happened is that citizens throughout the united states is concerned about president trump is make election, turns to us as the oldest and largest civil liberties and civil rights organisation in the united states and join darce in untold numbers. so we had, before donald trump was elected, 400,000 members, now we are over 1.6 million members. we quadrupled our membership. and your revenues? and our revenues.

people, the member so giving us support, sometimes $25 a time. sometimes much more than that. and so we sometimes much more than that. and so we have many sometimes much more than that. and so we have many more resources to so we have many more resources to deploy, but precisely because there are so many more threats to respond to and so we have, as we told president trump the week that he was elected, we will see you in court if you put in place measures that we think are unconstitutional, we will challenge them in court. as you have to say, you made it very explicit, even before he had taken office, after he won the november election you are quite plain that she would be taking trump on. this was political for you, from the very beginning. it was in political. it was about the issues, the civil rights and civil liberties principles, he threatened. so during the campaign week at analysed both hillary clinton ‘s agenda and proposals and donald trump‘s. we put our reports on both and raise concerns. about a number of both of

their proposals. but with trump you would hear him proposing keeping all muslims out of the united states, overturning roe versus wade, which protects a warmer‘s right to have an abortion. what we said was if you engage in measures that violate the constitution, then we will take you to court. it is not political, but principled. we will go through some of those measures and your reaction and responds to them, measured by metcher lebron. just to continue with this point of aid different spirit, a different soul within the american civil liberties union. it was made explicit by your colleague, anthony romero, when he said we learned a lot from the nra, the national rifle association, which perhaps is the most successful lobbying organisation in the united states of america, specifically there to defend the rights of gun owners. he said we looked at the nra and we decided if we could be a little less legalistic, focus less on the brain and more on the heart,

and try to change the culture, we thought we could then have a big impact. it seems to me that‘s a major pivot. you are a lawyerly organise organisation, based on a reading of the constitution, and suddenly you‘re talking about emotion, the issues of the heart, of passion. i think there are a couple of things there. first of all, the defence of civil liberties is not just a defence of reason, it is a defence of passion as well. it is a passion for equality, a passion for dignity, a passion forfreedom. passion for equality, a passion for dignity, a passion for freedom. and you need to be able... with respect, all this talk of passion, surely the fundamental is that it has to be dispassionate, it has to be a dispassionate, it has to be a dispassionate use of the constitution and a reading of the law. i don't know about that. i think... we are a non—partisan organisation. so passion and partisanship and other thinking. you can be passionate about your values without being partisan in terms of which party you support. so, for

example, we are passionate about the first amendment. so we protect the rights of white supremacists to speak, we protect the rights of the nra ina speak, we protect the rights of the nra in a suit against the governor of new york who is trying to use his revelatory authority over banks there 288 ——i doubt the nra. we come in on the side of the nra. we support the principle of free speech no matter who is speaking. you have raised two very interesting cases. youanmi side of the nra is a fascinating one. it is important and you were very involved in that. before we do, use earlier in—out about we, the aclu, being a non—partisan organisation, which frankly does not stack up with the weight you are handling your interventions in current american politics will stop the mid—term election season is on. you are pouring money into particular races across the country. not for named

candidates, but on an issue spaced bases which clearly is supporting democrats against republicans. i can cite you the various races. democrats against republicans. i can cite you the various raceslj democrats against republicans. i can cite you the various races. i will talk you through this will stop one of the things we learned from the nra was that one of the ways you defend a right, and sometimes the most effective way to defend a right ina most effective way to defend a right in a democracy, is by using the democratic process to defend that. that is what the nra does. you are going after candidates, you‘re going after named republicans will stop you went after ulloa pao, for a while, he‘s not running out, you made a point of going against it. you go against the guy, chris cobus, running in kansas, for governor of cancers. you go after named people because you don‘t like their political positions and you pour hundreds, hundreds of thousands of dollars into these campaigns —— kansas. the first thing to say is yes we are engaged in electoral politics, but principally, most of

our money is on ballot initiatives, restoring the rights of formally convicted people who have been denied he wrote that a right to vote in florida. that is a principal position. 0r in florida. that is a principal position. or to take away protections from transgender individuals orfrom protections from transgender individuals or from women, protections from transgender individuals orfrom women, with respect to abortion will stop those are principles. with respect to cabinets, we are engaged... yes, you are. “— cabinets, we are engaged... yes, you are. —— editors. if nonpartisanship is so important to you, simple question, why are you spending $800,000, at least, on a television ad campaign boosting the democrats stacey abrams in a very close race for governor of georgia against republican brain kent quiz we are not boosting stacey abrams. we are talking about is the civil rights and civil liberties issues at stake in that campaign. at the end of every ad we say we do not endorse either of the editors. there is

nothing to stop a non—partisan organisation from doing voter education about issues. that is what planned parenthood, a non—partisan organisation, has done. the nra is a non—partisan organisation. it educates people about gun rights. it supports whoever is the stronger supports whoever is the stronger support of gun rights, whether they area support of gun rights, whether they are a democrat or a republican. we are a democrat or a republican. we are the same way. if you are trying to protect civil liberties and you area to protect civil liberties and you are a democracy, and the people who exercise power, the people get voted into office, why would you not engage in that election to ensure that people, when they go to the polls, vote like their rights depend on a. the problem is, some of your best friends don‘t buy it. i will quote you a few. a former senator, former democrat and an independent, joe lieberman. he says this was obvious to be a good friend of the aclu. "the aclu has chosen to become a direct act in partisan politics, morphing what it was once a non—partisan organisation into what looks like just another advocacy group on the left." that is very

damning. joe lieberman has not been a friend of the aclu for a very long time. the point is, again, that if you are going to be an effective defender of liberty you can use the courts and we do use the courts. you can use the legislature, and we have a lwa ys can use the legislature, and we have always used the legislature, but if you don‘t use the power of the people you are giving up. there is a famous quote, judge lured it hand, one of the greatestjudges in us history, that liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. when it dies there no court, no constitution, no law can save it. while it lies there it needs no court in the constitution to save it. the point there is that liberty has two libyan people‘s carts. —— live in. what we do is gather people together in the fight for liberty. we use all the tools that are available. we use all the tools was we defend the rights of republicans

as well as benefit —— democrats will stop we do not support or oppose any tentative offers. we feel it would be irresponsible not to educate people about issues and stop a host of former aclu boa rdman people about issues and stop a host of former aclu boardman must think you are going down the wrong track. michael myers is one. i redblacks is another. in the new york times, just another. in the new york times, just a few months ago, he said that in your view you are de facto backing of progressive candidates is a mistake because he says "the problem is you get into politics and ultimately all power is an antagonist of liberty." you are seen as lining up for a particular candidate. that candidate might win, that candidate might become the power, him or herself, and you in the aclu then have a problem, much because you are seen to be backing the person to pathetic to them and then they represent the power that you should be safeguarding the people‘s interest against was up it

isa people‘s interest against was up it is a problem. i don't think it is a problem. festival, typically, we do not endorse or back any particular candidate... -- first of all. we have had this debate for a few minutes. many people look at what you are doing right now, the amount of money you are spending and how you are spending it, and their perception is just different from yours. does that not give you pause for thought? the people you have cited are essentially former aclu dissidents who had been criticising the aclu for decades and this is another one of their criticism. so you are deaf to this sort of criticism but i am not deaf to it. i understand the concern. but my response is if you don‘t use the democratic process to defend liberty you have given up on a critically important tool... and you will be less effective in defending liberty. and at the end of the day what we came together to do, as the aclu, is to defend liberty. when the aclu was founded in 1920 all its actions were direct action. it said, the first

legal director of the aclu, what are my predecessors, said "we can never expect justice from the my predecessors, said "we can never expectjustice from the courts." at that time the courts were very conservatives, the only constitutional rights they would recognise with the right to business owners to object to regulation of business. —— were the rats. they said we have to use other forms. we use whatever forms are available to further the ideals will stop at here is the difference, we don‘t support any particular person because he is any particular person because he is a democrat or because he is a republican. we support the principles of equality, dignity, liberty, and we use the democratic process to do so. in brief, how do you feel the courts are handling the difficult challenges posed by different trump policies? take a couple in brief, the muslim travel ban, as it has become known, you challenged it in the courts. in the end, a modified version of the travel ban is in effect. and another

key one, the separating families at the border, illegal immigrants, or undocumented immigrants coming in, children are taken away from their pa rents. children are taken away from their parents. you challenge that very passionately in the courts. yes, the courts it happening. but there are still hundreds of children who are separated from their parents. and we are fighting every day to make sure they are brought together. how do you feel about the way the courts are behaving in this year of challenge? i would say, for the most part, certainly in the lawsuits we have filed against president trump violating civil liberties and civil rights, we have prevailed in virtually all of them. the muslim ban, we prevailed at every level for the first two versions, and that the third level until the supreme court. that is a big bite. i think it was a failure on the court‘s part to recognise what was clearly an ante religious measure on the part of the president and to give that a whitewashing —— antireligious. 0therwise whitewashing —— antireligious. otherwise the courts have been

joined the president in seeking young women from getting abortions, required them to end the family separation, and the only reason there are still 200 families separated is that it takes time and become it is continuing to fight us, what we are using the court to bring what we are using the court to bring what should have happened right away, bringing families back together. so i think the courts are an important critical institution for defending liberty. and as he told president trump we will see you in court. we have seen him in court. and by and large the courts have done a good job. in the last couple of months, you at the aclu to get significant decision, deciding to oppose the nomination of rhett kavanaugh to be the latest supreme court justice. kavanaugh to be the latest supreme courtjustice. —— kavanaugh to be the latest supreme court justice. —— brett. kavanaugh to be the latest supreme courtjustice. —— brett. you have oppose justices before, courtjustice. —— brett. you have opposejustices before, but it courtjustice. —— brett. you have oppose justices before, but it is around. this is the fourth time in

history we have oppose any candidate for any office. the way you did it this time was quite extraordinary. you went after brett kavanaugh. you spent over $1 million in particular ads to attack brett kavanaugh‘s nomination. there was an extraordinary ad aired where you featured bill cosby, harvey weinstein, the tv presenters matt lauer and charlie rose, with a voice—over saying "we‘ve seen all this before, denials from powerful men". you tight brett kavanaugh, who has not been tried in a court of law, who is guilty of nothing in a courtroom, who is innocent until proven guilty, you tied him to men like bill cosby, who is serving up to ten year prison sentence for and molesting women. you are a lawyer. you think that is acceptable? so, he has not been convicted of anything, nor has matt lauer harvey weinstein or bill clinton, who was in that

out. bill cosby has been. bill cosby was the person in that advert convicted of anything. that is the point, cosby is a convicted criminal, a serious sex offender. you put in an advertisement, you put alongside the name of brett kavanaugh, alongside the name of brett kava naugh, used the alongside the name of brett kavanaugh, used the line "we‘ve this before, denials from powerful men". you think that is acceptable? that is the point, what united all of those people was that they were powerful men accused of sexual assault, he then denied it. and in our view, brett kavanaugh was a powerful person who was accused of sexual assault and then denied it, and we are very credible allegations of sexual assault. going on to note that all those people in that ad democrats, other than brett kavanaugh, this was shown when we care about sexual assault victims being taken seriously and not being given to powerful men in the past simply because they deny. the question was not whether he

should be convicted of a crime, the question was whether it should give someone about whom there are serious questions of sexual assault, a lifetime appointment and the most powerful chord in the country, and i think the year we took was that it would be responsible given those allegations. surely the aclu stance for one thing more than anything else, that is the rights of the individual under the law, the right to due process, the right to be regarded as innocent till proven guilty. that's right. yeah. at kavanaugh guilty. that's right. yeah. at kava naugh has guilty. that's right. yeah. at kavanaugh has not been tried. if there are credible allegations of sexual assault against you when you applied for a job and the interviewer concluded that the allegations were credible, and he does not have to prove it in a court of law, he would say i‘m not going to hire someone with credible allegations. that is just an ordinary job, allegations. that is just an ordinaryjob, this is my lifetime appointment to the supreme court.- other people who are fighting and fighting very hard to get brett

kavanaugh of fighting very hard to get brett kava naugh of that fighting very hard to get brett kavanaugh of that court and the block his nomination. —— there were other people. i come back to what the aclu in particular is fawn let me quote you another former board member, who was appalled by that particular ad that we discussed, appalled by your stand against brett kavanaugh. for a long time, she has been appalled by virtually everything the aclu does. you keep saying that just because everything the aclu does. you keep saying thatjust because they disagree with your policies does not mean that they are wrong, it means they are worried about the aclu‘s... iamjust giving they are worried about the aclu‘s... i am just giving you some context. what he says is i wonder how david cole is going to feel about arguing a case beforejustice kavanaugh, because of course he has now gone on to the supreme court. kavanaugh will remember that david cole in the aclu labelled him a bill cosby like sexual predator. so first of all, we did not label him as like bill cos by. did not label him as like bill cosby. we said there had been a

series of powerful men have denied allegations of sexual assault. 0ne of them is bill cosby, at the other is bill clinton. you because you are a leading lawyer in civil rights and human rights cases, you inevitably at some point will go to the supreme court to make a case. brett kavanaugh will be staring at your brett kava naugh will kavanaugh will be staring at your brett kavanaugh will probably remember how the aclu handled his nomination. yeah, and i hope he holds to his obligations as a judge to be very neutral and i presume that he will, but here‘s what i would say with respect to this. we did not oppose brett kavanaugh because of his political views, we did not oppose brett kavanaugh because president trump appointed him. many other civil rights and civil liberties organisations came out against brett kavanaugh from the outset, we did not. we took a neutral position because we do not oppose or support nominees for office, parts, at once christine ford testified in once brett kavanaugh ford testified in once brett kava naugh testified in ford testified in once brett kavanaugh testified in a way that he did, that our board, and this is a

decision on board, it is not my decision on board, it is not my decision but outboard, felt that it would be irresponsible given that. it was based on the notion that someone who is accused of the kind of act that he was accused of credibly, no one ever discredited christine ford‘s allegations, should not get a lifetime appointment to the court. before we finish, a couple of other important challenges that the aclu has had to deal with. ijust wonder that the aclu has had to deal with. i just wonder whether that the aclu has had to deal with. ijust wonder whether in retrospect, you think you got it right. 2017, there was a march of far right white nationalists in charlottesville in the united states. people remember that it ended in violence, one of the nonviolent left—wing protesters there to try and block the far right march was killed. the aclu had made a strong stand defending the right of those, a lot of people called the neo—nazis, to walk through charlottesville. neo—nazis, to walk through cha rlottesville. in neo—nazis, to walk through charlottesville. in light of the death, in light of the loss of life, do you think the aclu got that one wrong? i do not think we got that

one wrong in this sense, the right—wing nationalist, who had applied for the permit and copper permit, was at the last minute turned down for the permit by the city of charlottesville because he was protesting, the city of cha rlottesville‘s was protesting, the city of charlottesville‘s decision to take down a civil war monument. instead, the city charlottesville the right to protest there to counter protesters. so in the city comes in and says we do not like what you are saying, it three going to suppress your speech, we like what these other people are saying, so we are going to let them speak, that is exactly the right time for the aclu to get involved. 0f exactly the right time for the aclu to get involved. of course, we have no idea that it was going to end in violence and violence. 0ur no idea that it was going to end in violence and violence. our clients for under oath that he had no intention to pursue violence. maybe he did, maybe he did not. maybe in retrospect, we could have done more research and determined that he intended to engage in violence but i do not know that he did, and on the

backs of what happens, it was a straightforward violation. that it did from the debate within the aclu about just how far the did from the debate within the aclu aboutjust how far the defence of freedom of expression should go in the future. you very famous in the for having defended any nazi march in illinois in 78, which upset a lot of people, are you stuck fast your principles. and now we are doing the same. but now we have seen this leap document within the aclu which discussed whether the free—speech limitation should be rethought, the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacist or others who are contrary to our values should be taken into account, this document said. we maybe need to think again about whether we defend the far right. i wrote that document, 0k? about whether we defend the far right. i wrote that document, ok? so ican right. i wrote that document, ok? so i can tell you what that... and it was not leaked, it was an internal document that... they did not want the insiders to see... it was an internal document about a strategy... no, because he is it

says. it says we are a b—10 organisation, we defend civil rights, privacy, womenwrites. inevitably, sometimes writes conflicts, when the conflict, we should have a fulsome discussion with each of those who defend these rights in the room and we should make a decision on understanding the cost of whether to go ahead and how to go ahead. in that document, we affirmed on page one, we have a policy of defending those with whom we disagree, including white supremacist, including the alt right, and will continue to do so. some of your own members now think that you should back off supporting powerful groups like the nra, but some of your members do not like that. are you going to win that vital is the membership going to win that fight? the membership is behind us, we did not lose any members as a result of the nra fight. we have a lwa ys result of the nra fight. we have always been an organisation that is committed to defending the bill of writes, regardless of who you are. we are determined to do so there has

been no imitation whatsoever that we are stopping that fight and we are finding it harder than ever before. david cole, we have to enter there. but thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you. —— the bill of rights. this hello. friday starts with the last widespread frost of this cold spell before things turn milder over the weekend windier too. here‘s a look at how things stand for early risers in the morning. some spots down to _5’ in the morning. some spots down to -5, -6 in the morning. some spots down to —5, —6 perhaps. 0ne in the morning. some spots down to —5, —6 perhaps. one or two mist and fog patches, so nothing to widespread. still a few showers dotted around western parts of the

uk early on, although things are not going to be as cold as elsewhere. for most, sunny start the day and the sunshine will continue throughout. the sun will turn increasingly hazy across western parts of the uk through the day, high crowds filling in and in this area of rain, which has been knocking on the door of northern ireland by the afternoon. —— which will be. some sunshine, gentle breeze, that is not going to feel too bad. as we go to friday night, clearly the weather is changing. we are seeing a system returning from the atlantic and turning wetter to scotla nd the atlantic and turning wetter to scotland and northern ireland. gales developing the northern seacoast, not as cold but still quite chilly for the coldest part of east anglia in south—east england. this weather system coming in is this deep area of low pressure, next hurricane 0scar is going to pass as well to the north—west but still produce and strong winds, the closer you up to it, on saturday, especially in the western isles. and a lot of rain,

especially in western scotland. a soaking day here, some outbreaks of rain pushing to the west of scotland, in northern ireland as well, it does clear later in the day and starts to edge into west wales and starts to edge into west wales and the western side of england, which means further east in england, you will be staying dry with some sunshine. it is windy across the uk, some fast in excess of 60 kilometres an hour. —— miles an hour. the coming in from the south—west, it is going to be a much milder day and of course, it is a fireworks bonfire weekend. we are expecting on saturday evening for the rain to have cleared to belfast that still be affecting parts of scotland, western wales, western england. if you are going out on sunday, the chance of seeing some rain around particularly through north—west and western england. another system just pushing some rain to western parts of england, wales, into northern england. much of scotland and

northern ireland will be fine. 0ne or two showers in the north—west. it will still be cloudy in the south—eastern east anglia, quite mild but not as mild as saturday. i‘m karishma vaswani singapore. the headlines: the us mobilises thousands of troops as president trump continues his crackdown on immigration ahead of the midterm elections. at this very moment large well—organised caravans of migrants are marching towards our southern border. some people call it an invasion. it is like an invasion. us authorities charge two former goldman sachs bankers and a fugitive malaysian financier — following one of the world‘s biggest financial scandals. i‘m kasia madera in london. also in the programme: divers in indonesia find the flight data recorder from the lion air plane, which crashed on monday, killing all 189 people on board. and the new sound of south africa: we meet the djs setting a course