AMY GOODMAN: The environmental group Greenpeace is vowing to appeal after a jury in North Dakota ordered the organization to pay $667 million in damages for defaming Energy Transfer Partners, the corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Texas-based pipeline company accused Greenpeace of orchestrating criminal behavior by training and providing funds to the Indigenous-led protest at Standing Rock nearly a decade ago.

Greenpeace said it played a minor role at the protests, and warned the lawsuit was aimed at destroying the right to peaceful protest. Greenpeace attorney Deepa Padmanabha spoke outside the North Dakota courthouse on Wednesday.

DEEPA PADMANABHA: What we saw these last three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to rewrite Greenpeace’s story, what this trial showed was Greenpeace’s unwavering commitment to nonviolence in every action that we take. We should all be concerned about the attacks on our First Amendment and lawsuits like this that really threaten our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. And Greenpeace is going to continue its fight to protect these fundamental rights for everyone.

AMY GOODMAN: The Indigenous water protector Kandi Mossett White, who took part in the Standing Rock protests, also spoke outside the courthouse in Mandan.

KANDI MOSSETT WHITE: My name is Kandi Mossett White. I’m born and raised in North Dakota. I’m originally from New Town. I live in Bismarck. I’m Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara. All along the lands down south, that is our historic lands that were destroyed. And this company got money for defamation for Greenpeace and for other peoples allegedly saying that they destroyed sacred sites? They did! I was there. They got the letter from the Tribal Historic Preservation officer on Friday, September 2nd, and on September 3rd, their company moved all of their bulldozers up two weeks ahead of schedule and razed the entire area. There was burial grounds out there. And they’re calling that defamation? It’s true! That’s what happened! I just don’t understand how they can get away with it, other than North Dakota’s a huge fossil fuel state. I know that. I’m from here. I was born and raised here.

AMY GOODMAN: Energy Transfer Partners’ attorney Trey Cox praised the jury’s decision and accused Greenpeace of running a propaganda machine.

TREY COX: Greenpeace paid protesters and trained individuals to unlawfully disrupt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace maliciously misrepresented events within this community in an unrelenting attempt to stop, by any means possible, the construction of a pipeline that had already obtained all of the necessary legal approvals. These are the facts, not the fake news of the Greenpeace propaganda machine.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by Steve Donziger, who was part of the independent trial monitoring team that’s been observing the Greenpeace trial in Dakota. Steve Donziger has his own history of battling corporations. He was targeted for prosecution by Chevron after he successfully sued the oil giant on behalf of 30,000 Amazonian Indigenous people in Ecuador whose land was devastated by oil spills. He ended up being disbarred and spending over 900 days under house arrest.

Steve Donziger, welcome back to Democracy Now!, this time in studio. Start off — you were just in Mandan. You were just in —

STEVEN DONZIGER: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — North Dakota. Talk about the significance of this multi-hundred-million-dollar verdict against Greenpeace, that could bankrupt them.

STEVEN DONZIGER: I mean, the first thing, first of all, we were in court every day for three weeks, and we had eight or nine attorneys on this team. We organized it because for months we had concerns about this trial. It was very clear that this was not going to be a trial as that term is commonly understood. I would really call it more a choreographed show, in a county that, you know, 75% of the people voted for Donald Trump. Greenpeace did a survey of residents prior to trial. Ninety-seven percent said they could not judge this case fairly. Of the jurors, most had ties to the fossil fuel industry. In our opinion, it was impossible for Greenpeace to get a fair trial in this county, and they —

AMY GOODMAN: Why couldn’t they get it moved?

STEVEN DONZIGER: Well, they tried repeatedly to get it moved, and the judge wouldn’t move it. So, that raises, really, another issue, which is the court itself, the judge in this case just didn’t seem to want to give Greenpeace anything. He repeatedly ruled against Greenpeace. The proceedings, at the request of the company, were held pretty much in secret. Trials in North Dakota are generally live-streamed; Court TV had broadcast trials. But he cut off the live stream for the public and the media. It was very hard to get — the only way you could cover the trial was to actually be physically in court, in this very isolated courthouse. So, there was an effort, I think, really, to shroud the trial in secrecy. Thousands of documents were sealed. So, you know, I don’t think Greenpeace — just watching this, as someone who’s actually been through this, I don’t think they stood a chance.

What’s interesting is, and sort of the larger issue, as Deepa pointed out, is this really is an attack on the First Amendment. I mean, Greenpeace, really, in essence, was a stand-in, in my opinion, for the Standing Rock Sioux, for the climate movement, for the right to protest. And I think this company – and it’s really been driven largely by CEO Kelcy Warren, who is a huge Trump supporter — is trying to use this as a vehicle, really, to intimidate the climate movement, intimidate the Standing Rock Sioux and, I think, really chill people’s First Amendment rights. And as we know, in this environment right now in the United States, that’s a serious, serious issue. So this trial has serious implications. It goes way beyond the environmental movement. It goes really to the right to protest. It affects church groups or religious organizations, political organizations. And I think people need to keep a close eye on it and really do what they can to protect Greenpeace.

AMY GOODMAN: How is a Texas-based company, Energy Transfer Partners, able to bring this case in North Dakota?

STEVEN DONZIGER: Well, the reason they brought it in North Dakota is because the protests took place in North Dakota. So, this pipeline runs from North Dakota down to Illinois. It’s about 1,200 miles. And there were protests all along the way, but the real — the most intense protest took place just south of, you know, Morton County or in Morton County, where the trial was held. And they brought it there for the obvious reason, to me, that they felt like it was the most hospitable venue they could find. And, you know, again, it really was not a trial as is commonly understood. Like, they felt like they could get people on that jury who were completely sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry. And that’s exactly what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what a SLAPP lawsuit is, as you talk about this being much more significant than this particular case.

STEVEN DONZIGER: So, a SLAPP lawsuit — and that’s what I believe this is — is a lawsuit that’s brought by a corporation or the government to silence people, someone who is speaking out, someone who’s taking on the abuse of the corporation. And it’s really designed not to resolve a legitimate legal claim. It’s designed to really harass and impose extremely burdensome litigation on someone who cannot afford it, so they shut up and stop talking. And I think this is a classic SLAPP lawsuit. I mean, the difference is Greenpeace has resources to defend it, and I thought their lawyers did a very, very good job under almost impossible circumstances. But it really is not a legitimate lawsuit. It’s a lawsuit that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, because it’s designed to silence people’s legitimate, constitutionally protected right to speak out.

And that’s what happened to me, too, with Chevron. And what’s interesting for me personally, Amy, is that the same law firm that Chevron deployed against me that led to almost three years of detention in a criminal contempt of court case, where I never got a jury, because of my work on behalf of the Ecuadorian communities, that same law firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, was hired by Energy Transfer to go after Greenpeace with the same legal theories. And as we sat in court, I mean, it just felt like the false narrative all over again. I mean, basically, up was down, down was up, and the judge sort of made evidentiary decisions that let the company really put in a false narrative that, for example, the protesters were violent, when everybody who was down there knows it was a law enforcement agencies and the private security companies hired by Energy Transfer that were really committing violence against the protesters. So, there was a lot of false narrative in the courtroom, and the jury, being, I think, predisposed to believe the company, they bought it.

AMY GOODMAN: Could this shutter Greenpeace?

STEVEN DONZIGER: I don’t think so. I think this is an important point. We need to take a deep breath here. Greenpeace has a right to appeal. I think the due process violations in this trial were so serious, I think Greenpeace’s chances on appeal are very, very good. I do not think this is going to shutter Greenpeace.

What I would say is, to people out there who care about these issues — the climate movement, Indigenous rights and the right to protest — rally behind Greenpeace. It’s very important that the courts in North Dakota understand this is being watched all over the world and that it has implications for our entire country. I think Greenpeace is going to win the appeal. And my hope is they’ll come out much stronger because of this experience, even though it’s painful right now. In the long run, they will come out stronger because of the experience and get even more support.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Steve Donziger, I want to thank you for being with us, human rights and environmental defender who monitored the Greenpeace trial in North Dakota.

Coming up, Murder[ing] the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful. We’ll speak with David Enrich of The New York Times. Stay with us.