newyorker--2020-12-15--Trump’s Coup Attempt Isn’t Over

Trump’s Coup Attempt Isn’t Over

After the Electoral College cast its votes and affirmed his victory , on Monday , Joe Biden declared that “ democracy prevailed ” and “ faith in our institutions held.
” And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally congratulated Biden as President-elect and Kamala Harris as Vice-President-elect .
On January 6th , a joint session of Congress will officially count the votes .
The result should be more than assured .
But last week brought the shock of seeing seventeen Republican state attorneys general and more than half of House Republicans sign amicus briefs supporting Texas ’ s unsuccessful bid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ’ electoral votes from being cast .
That astounding show of loyalty to Trump made it imaginable that Republican lawmakers , having failed to convince the Court to overturn the election result , would use Congress to attempt it .
On December 13th , Representative Mo Brooks , Republican of Alabama , announced his intent to dispute Biden ’ s victory by challenging the votes of five swing states in the January congressional session .
The group he will lead in the effort so far includes Representatives-elect Barry Moore , from Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia .
This year ’ s election and post-election period have felt unprecedented in so many ways , but there are long-standing rules for challenging electoral votes for President on the floor of Congress .
The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the Vice-President , as President of the Senate , “ shall , in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives , open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
” But , under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 , if a member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign and submit challenges to a state ’ s electoral votes , then the two bodies must debate the challenge separately for two hours , and then vote separately on whether to discard those electoral votes as unlawful .
The votes are to be tossed only if a majority of both houses agree to do so ; that has never happened since the law was passed .
• After the election , assaults on truth and the press continue .
• Lessons of failed power grabs , in America and overseas .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate crisis ?
In recent decades , challenges to electoral votes have come from Democrats , after their candidate had conceded , and after they recognized the Republican winner as the President-elect .
In 2001 , Democratic House members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to counting Florida ’ s electoral votes , but Vice-President Al Gore , who ’ d conceded the election in December , 2000 , after losing in Bush v. Gore , rejected the challenge because no senator supported it , and declared his opponent , George W. Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats actually succeeded in triggering the mandatory debates and votes , after Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones , of Ohio , and Senator Barbara Boxer , of California , challenged Ohio ’ s electoral votes for President Bush on the basis of “ numerous , serious election irregularities.
” Senator John Kerry , who ’ d lost to Bush , made clear that he didn ’ t support the effort , and neither the House nor the Senate agreed to discard those electoral votes .
( Tubbs Jones and Boxer said that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Presidential election , but rather to make a point about significant voter disenfranchisement . )
In 2017 , several House Democrats objected to Electoral College votes for Trump , on the grounds of Russian interference and of voter suppression in Alabama , but Vice-President Biden , presiding over the session , rejected their effort because no senator signed the challenge .
A Republican challenge in Congress will not succeed this January , either .
Though at least one Republican senator may join Representative Brooks to challenge swing states ’ electoral votes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no possibility that the Democrat-led House will support discarding the votes .
And because several Republican senators , including Mitt Romney , John Cornyn , Lisa Murkowski , Susan Collins , and Ben Sasse , have indicated that they look askance at such efforts , the Senate is also highly unlikely to do so .
But even a guaranteed failure to overturn the election result will still afford Republicans a loud show of doing something to “ stop the steal.
” On Sunday , Representative Brooks said , of Congress ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have a superior role under the Constitution than the Supreme Court does , than any federal court judge does , than any state court judge does.
” Perhaps that is so , in the sense that the Constitution directs Congress to count the electoral votes and declare the winner .
But Brooks ’ s next statement , “ What we say , goes .
That ’ s the final verdict , ” was of course gross hyperbole .
Congress ’ s role , as spelled out in the Twelfth Amendment and federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function of faithfully counting ballots .
Any discretionary ability that Congress may have to discard votes must be grounded in evidence of fraud—which , in Trump ’ s abundant lawsuits , courts have already found wholly lacking .
Even after the Electoral College result , Brooks called on fellow-Republicans to object to electoral votes “ from states with such flawed election systems that they are not worthy of our trust.
” Testing the waters , Senator Ron Johnson , Republican of Wisconsin , has scheduled a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to examine “ the irregularities in the 2020 election.
” Johnson has claimed that his goal is “ to restore confidence in the system ” —and to determine whether he and other senators should join the challenge to states ’ electoral votes .
The witnesses will be Republican attorneys including Kenneth Starr , who was Trump ’ s impeachment defense lawyer .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has urged cancellation of the hearing and said , “ To use a Senate committee to spread misinformation about our own elections , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day approached , many worried about the possibility of significant violence at polling places or in the streets .
Thankfully , that did not come to pass .
But , in the weeks since , we had new and developing reasons for alarm stemming from the harmful notion , promoted by Trump and key Republican leaders , that exerting pressure on officials could change the result of the election .
Election officials in Georgia , Arizona , Nevada , Vermont , Pennsylvania , and Michigan have become targets of harassment , intimidation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Trump campaign attorney Joe diGenova declared on Newsmax that Christopher Krebs , the former director of the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , whom Trump fired because he was working to debunk election disinformation , “ should be drawn and quartered , taken out at dawn and shot.
” Last week , Krebs filed a defamation lawsuit against diGenova , Trump , and Newsmax , describing the threatening tweets and messages that Krebs has received , which , according to the lawsuit , prompted one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daddy ’ s going to get executed.
” The Arizona Republican Party recently sent a tweet asking supporters if they are willing to die to overturn the election results .
And , this past weekend , after the Supreme Court declined to hear Republicans ’ case , four people were stabbed in clashes between pro-Trump protesters and counterprotesters in Washington , D.C. , and one person was shot in a similar clash in Washington State .
On Monday , the Electoral College voted without incident , but , after threats to many electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote in a secret location , and electors in Wisconsin were directed to enter their meeting place through an unmarked side door .
Violent unrest around elections is unfortunately common in emerging democracies .
This year , more than fifty people were killed in post-election violence in Côte d ’ Ivoire , and state police killed civilians and assaulted and arrested political rivals in Tanzania .
In the United States , the longer our representatives contest the result of the election , the more possible violent escalation seems .
The threats against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light of examples such as that of Kenya , where , three years ago , a top election official was murdered , and Belarus , where , last year , a former police officer revealed that he was involved in the 1999 abduction and murder of the former head of the central election commission .
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said on Sunday that “ if you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened , that ’ s why you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out.
” But it remains unclear how pursuing the goal of overturning election results , simply because one ’ s own side lost , bodes at all well for what happens when the legal process finally runs out .
Michael Flynn , Trump ’ s former national-security adviser , who received a pardon from his former boss , insisted at a rally over the weekend , “ We decide the election , ” after having tweeted out , two weeks ago , a petition warning that “ the threat of a shooting civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to declare martial law , suspend the Constitution , and order a new Presidential election under military supervision .
Those calls were swiftly condemned as dangerous by military leaders .
That puts into relief the overarching question about what the Trump Presidency has meant for our laws and legal institutions .
Are they weathering a particularly bad storm while doing what they ’ re supposed to do—namely , to channel the potential for violent conflict into peaceful if begrudging resolution and coexistence ?
Or are they truly beginning to crumble around us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office ?
We likely won ’ t know for years whether the emerging norms of today are merely testing democracy or destroying it .
Read More About the Presidential Transition • Donald Trump has survived impeachment , twenty-six sexual-misconduct accusations , and thousands of lawsuits .
His luck may well end now that Joe Biden is the next President .
• With litigation unlikely to change the outcome of the election , Republicans are looking to strategies that might remain even after rebuffs both at the polls and in court .
• With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about how to prevent the moral injuries of the past four years from happening again .
• If 2020 has demonstrated anything , it is the need to rebalance the economy to benefit the working class .
There are many ways a Biden Administration can start .
• Trump is being forced to give up his attempt to overturn the election .
But his efforts to build an alternative reality around himself will continue .
• Sign up for our daily newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists @

After the Electoral College cast its votes and affirmed his victory, on Monday, Joe Biden declared that “democracy prevailed” and “faith in our institutions held.” And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally congratulated Biden as President-elect and Kamala Harris as Vice-President-elect. On January 6th, a joint session of Congress will officially count the votes. The result should be more than assured. But last week brought the shock of seeing seventeen Republican state attorneys general and more than half of House Republicans sign amicus briefs supporting Texas’s unsuccessful bid to have the Supreme Court prevent four states’ electoral votes from being cast. That astounding show of loyalty to Trump made it imaginable that Republican lawmakers, having failed to convince the Court to overturn the election result, would use Congress to attempt it. On December 13th, Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, announced his intent to dispute Biden’s victory by challenging the votes of five swing states in the January congressional session. The group he will lead in the effort so far includes Representatives-elect Barry Moore, from Alabama, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, from Georgia.
This year’s election and post-election period have felt unprecedented in so many ways, but there are long-standing rules for challenging electoral votes for President on the floor of Congress. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the Vice-President, as President of the Senate, “shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” But, under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, if a member of the Senate and a member of the House sign and submit challenges to a state’s electoral votes, then the two bodies must debate the challenge separately for two hours, and then vote separately on whether to discard those electoral votes as unlawful. The votes are to be tossed only if a majority of both houses agree to do so; that has never happened since the law was passed.
Editor’s Picks
In recent decades, challenges to electoral votes have come from Democrats, after their candidate had conceded, and after they recognized the Republican winner as the President-elect. In 2001, Democratic House members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes, but Vice-President Al Gore, who’d conceded the election in December, 2000, after losing in Bush v. Gore, rejected the challenge because no senator supported it, and declared his opponent, George W. Bush, the winner. In 2005, Democrats actually succeeded in triggering the mandatory debates and votes, after Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, of Ohio, and Senator Barbara Boxer, of California, challenged Ohio’s electoral votes for President Bush on the basis of “numerous, serious election irregularities.” Senator John Kerry, who’d lost to Bush, made clear that he didn’t support the effort, and neither the House nor the Senate agreed to discard those electoral votes. (Tubbs Jones and Boxer said that they were not aiming to change the result of the Presidential election, but rather to make a point about significant voter disenfranchisement.) In 2017, several House Democrats objected to Electoral College votes for Trump, on the grounds of Russian interference and of voter suppression in Alabama, but Vice-President Biden, presiding over the session, rejected their effort because no senator signed the challenge.
A Republican challenge in Congress will not succeed this January, either. Though at least one Republican senator may join Representative Brooks to challenge swing states’ electoral votes for Biden, triggering the two-hour-long debates, there is no possibility that the Democrat-led House will support discarding the votes. And because several Republican senators, including Mitt Romney, John Cornyn, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Ben Sasse, have indicated that they look askance at such efforts, the Senate is also highly unlikely to do so. But even a guaranteed failure to overturn the election result will still afford Republicans a loud show of doing something to “stop the steal.”
On Sunday, Representative Brooks said, of Congress’s part in Presidential elections, “We have a superior role under the Constitution than the Supreme Court does, than any federal court judge does, than any state court judge does.” Perhaps that is so, in the sense that the Constitution directs Congress to count the electoral votes and declare the winner. But Brooks’s next statement, “What we say, goes. That’s the final verdict,” was of course gross hyperbole. Congress’s role, as spelled out in the Twelfth Amendment and federal law, is limited to the ministerial function of faithfully counting ballots. Any discretionary ability that Congress may have to discard votes must be grounded in evidence of fraud—which, in Trump’s abundant lawsuits, courts have already found wholly lacking. Even after the Electoral College result, Brooks called on fellow-Republicans to object to electoral votes “from states with such flawed election systems that they are not worthy of our trust.”
Testing the waters, Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, has scheduled a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, this Wednesday, in order to examine “the irregularities in the 2020 election.” Johnson has claimed that his goal is “to restore confidence in the system”—and to determine whether he and other senators should join the challenge to states’ electoral votes. The witnesses will be Republican attorneys including Kenneth Starr, who was Trump’s impeachment defense lawyer. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has urged cancellation of the hearing and said, “To use a Senate committee to spread misinformation about our own elections, it’s beyond the pale.”
As Election Day approached, many worried about the possibility of significant violence at polling places or in the streets. Thankfully, that did not come to pass. But, in the weeks since, we had new and developing reasons for alarm stemming from the harmful notion, promoted by Trump and key Republican leaders, that exerting pressure on officials could change the result of the election. Election officials in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have become targets of harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence. Last month, the Trump campaign attorney Joe diGenova declared on Newsmax that Christopher Krebs, the former director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, whom Trump fired because he was working to debunk election disinformation, “should be drawn and quartered, taken out at dawn and shot.” Last week, Krebs filed a defamation lawsuit against diGenova, Trump, and Newsmax, describing the threatening tweets and messages that Krebs has received, which, according to the lawsuit, prompted one of his children to ask whether “Daddy’s going to get executed.” The Arizona Republican Party recently sent a tweet asking supporters if they are willing to die to overturn the election results. And, this past weekend, after the Supreme Court declined to hear Republicans’ case, four people were stabbed in clashes between pro-Trump protesters and counterprotesters in Washington, D.C., and one person was shot in a similar clash in Washington State. On Monday, the Electoral College voted without incident, but, after threats to many electors’ safety, electors in Arizona had to vote in a secret location, and electors in Wisconsin were directed to enter their meeting place through an unmarked side door.
Violent unrest around elections is unfortunately common in emerging democracies. This year, more than fifty people were killed in post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire, and state police killed civilians and assaulted and arrested political rivals in Tanzania. In the United States, the longer our representatives contest the result of the election, the more possible violent escalation seems. The threats against U.S. election officials are particularly chilling in light of examples such as that of Kenya, where, three years ago, a top election official was murdered, and Belarus, where, last year, a former police officer revealed that he was involved in the 1999 abduction and murder of the former head of the central election commission.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said on Sunday that “if you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened, that’s why you’ve got to have the whole system play out.” But it remains unclear how pursuing the goal of overturning election results, simply because one’s own side lost, bodes at all well for what happens when the legal process finally runs out. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national-security adviser, who received a pardon from his former boss, insisted at a rally over the weekend, “We decide the election,” after having tweeted out, two weeks ago, a petition warning that “the threat of a shooting civil war is imminent,” and urging Trump to declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and order a new Presidential election under military supervision. Those calls were swiftly condemned as dangerous by military leaders. That puts into relief the overarching question about what the Trump Presidency has meant for our laws and legal institutions. Are they weathering a particularly bad storm while doing what they’re supposed to do—namely, to channel the potential for violent conflict into peaceful if begrudging resolution and coexistence? Or are they truly beginning to crumble around us in Trump’s final weeks in office? We likely won’t know for years whether the emerging norms of today are merely testing democracy or destroying it.
Read More About the Presidential Transition


newyorker--2020-12-15--The Overlooked Hallmark of the Trump Administration—and Other Autocracies

The images of the first people to receive the COVID-19 vaccine promise the end of this particular nightmare .
But it ’ s likely that hundreds of thousands more will die in the United States before the pandemic is over .
The return to life without social distancing and isolation , the end to our loneliness , could proceed with unnecessary slowness because the Trump Administration did not secure as many doses of the vaccine as it could have .
We have come to expect this President to fail Americans , catastrophically , and we have become accustomed to understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration : cruelty and militant incompetence .
But there is a third one , characteristic of many , if not all , autocracies : indifference .
Last week , the Times reported that , before Pfizer had concluded trials of its vaccine , the U.S. government had turned down repeated offers to lock in hundreds of millions of additional doses .
The story offered no explanation for this decision , aside from an anonymous quote that Pfizer “ was just not going to get the government ’ s money ” before it produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectiveness .
In addition to being petulant , the quote didn ’ t make sense : Pfizer did not accept federal money for research and development through the government ’ s vaccine program , Operation Warp Speed , and the U.S. government would not have been obligated to pay anything if the vaccine had failed in clinical trials .
After the story was published , the host of the Times ’ podcast “ The Daily , ” Michael Barbaro , pressed the principal reporter on the story , Sharon LaFraniere , on who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional vaccine doses , and why .
There does not seem to be a clear answer—someone , or someones , just did .
One of the best-remembered and most useful phrases from twentieth-century political theory is Hannah Arendt ’ s “ the banality of evil , ” born of her attempt to understand the motivations of Adolf Eichmann , an architect of the Holocaust .
The phrase has been interpreted to mean that Eichmann , despite his high position , was merely a cog in a wheel that would have churned with or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , a shapeless man who would have conformed to any era .
All of this is accurate .
But what perhaps struck Arendt most when she was reporting on the Eichmann trial , for The New Yorker , was Eichmann ’ s indifference .
She notes that he didn ’ t seem to remember some of his most consequential , murderous actions , not because he had a poor memory—and not , she assumed , because he was dissembling—but because he didn ’ t care , and hadn ’ t cared at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recollection of two things : perceived injustices perpetrated against him—during his trial in Jerusalem he showed himself to be a first-class whiner—and events that advanced his own career , as when important people noticed him and , say , took him bowling .
The parallels offer themselves .
From what we know about Donald Trump , he will remember 2020 as a year when he was unfairly treated by the voters , the courts , and the media , and also a year when he golfed .
In this year of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and acting like the pandemic was over , while recommending bleach and bragging about his own tremendous recovery .
But what he has demonstrated consistently , while three hundred thousand people in this country have died and millions became sick , is that he couldn ’ t be bothered .
Memorable news stories have focussed on the cruel and self-serving ways in which the Administration has addressed the pandemic , as when the President ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , reportedly found it to be politically advantageous that the virus was disproportionately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Trump withheld resources from states whose governors had criticized him .
Trump apparently wanted to lift COVID-19 restrictions because he wanted the short-term economic boost that might have helped his reëlection chances .
But he also demonstrably , passionately , even desperately wanted a vaccine , and he wanted to take credit for it .
His Administration poured money into Operation Warp Speed .
And then they dropped the ball , for no reason that we can now see—likely because there is no real reason .
Someone might have thought that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have wanted to spite Pfizer for refusing the money that Trump was so generously bestowing .
Someone else might have assumed , overconfidently , that Pfizer could always be coerced later into producing the additional doses .
Trump himself was most likely golfing .
I have written a lot of articles and several books about Russia ’ s transformation under Vladimir Putin , but the experience I ’ ve always found hardest to describe is one of feeling as if creativity and imagination were sucked out of society after he came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much censorship or even intimidation as it is indifference .
When the state took over television , for example , it wasn ’ t just that the news was censored : it was that the new bosses didn ’ t care about the quality of the visuals or the writing .
The same thing happened in other media , in architecture , in filmmaking .
Life in an autocracy is , among other things , dull .
Nothing has reminded me of Russia quite so much as the Trump Administration ’ s belated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It will build on an earlier effort to “ defeat despair ” about the pandemic , which either wasted or simply failed to spend more than a quarter of a billion dollars , because the officials involved tried to ideologically vet two hundred and seventy-four celebrities who may or may not have been asked to take part .
Many , according to documents released by the House Oversight and Reform Committee , appeared to have been disqualified because they had been critical of Trump .
Several said no , and only a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Quaid then apparently backed out , and the campaign went dormant .
Had it all been a scam ?
A particularly dumb version of a Hollywood witch-hunt ?
Probably not .
It was probably another story about a President and an Administration that cares about slights but not about people .
Read More About the Presidential Transition • Donald Trump has survived impeachment , twenty-six sexual-misconduct accusations , and thousands of lawsuits .
His luck may well end now that Joe Biden is the next President .
• With litigation unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are looking to strategies that might remain even after rebuffs both at the polls and in court .
• With the Trump Presidency ending , we need to talk about how to prevent the moral injuries of the past four years from happening again .
• If 2020 has demonstrated anything , it is the need to rebalance the economy to benefit the working class .
There are many ways a Biden Administration can start .
• Trump is being forced to give up his attempt to overturn the election .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around himself will continue .
• Sign up for our daily newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

The images of the first people to receive the COVID-19 vaccine promise the end of this particular nightmare. But it’s likely that hundreds of thousands more will die in the United States before the pandemic is over. The return to life without social distancing and isolation, the end to our loneliness, could proceed with unnecessary slowness because the Trump Administration did not secure as many doses of the vaccine as it could have. We have come to expect this President to fail Americans, catastrophically, and we have become accustomed to understanding these failures through two traits of his Administration: cruelty and militant incompetence. But there is a third one, characteristic of many, if not all, autocracies: indifference.
Last week, the Times reported that, before Pfizer had concluded trials of its vaccine, the U.S. government had turned down repeated offers to lock in hundreds of millions of additional doses. The story offered no explanation for this decision, aside from an anonymous quote that Pfizer “was just not going to get the government’s money” before it produced conclusive proof of its vaccine’s effectiveness. In addition to being petulant, the quote didn’t make sense: Pfizer did not accept federal money for research and development through the government’s vaccine program, Operation Warp Speed, and the U.S. government would not have been obligated to pay anything if the vaccine had failed in clinical trials. After the story was published, the host of the Times’ podcast “The Daily,” Michael Barbaro, pressed the principal reporter on the story, Sharon LaFraniere, on who had made the decision to forgo securing additional vaccine doses, and why. There does not seem to be a clear answer—someone, or someones, just did.
One of the best-remembered and most useful phrases from twentieth-century political theory is Hannah Arendt’s “the banality of evil,” born of her attempt to understand the motivations of Adolf Eichmann, an architect of the Holocaust. The phrase has been interpreted to mean that Eichmann, despite his high position, was merely a cog in a wheel that would have churned with or without him—that he was normal for his time, a shapeless man who would have conformed to any era. All of this is accurate. But what perhaps struck Arendt most when she was reporting on the Eichmann trial, for The New Yorker, was Eichmann’s indifference. She notes that he didn’t seem to remember some of his most consequential, murderous actions, not because he had a poor memory—and not, she assumed, because he was dissembling—but because he didn’t care, and hadn’t cared at the time. Eichmann had an excellent recollection of two things: perceived injustices perpetrated against him—during his trial in Jerusalem he showed himself to be a first-class whiner—and events that advanced his own career, as when important people noticed him and, say, took him bowling.
The parallels offer themselves. From what we know about Donald Trump, he will remember 2020 as a year when he was unfairly treated by the voters, the courts, and the media, and also a year when he golfed. In this year of the coronavirus, Trump has oscillated between holding briefings and acting like the pandemic was over, while recommending bleach and bragging about his own tremendous recovery. But what he has demonstrated consistently, while three hundred thousand people in this country have died and millions became sick, is that he couldn’t be bothered. Memorable news stories have focussed on the cruel and self-serving ways in which the Administration has addressed the pandemic, as when the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, reportedly found it to be politically advantageous that the virus was disproportionately affecting states with Democratic governments, or when Trump withheld resources from states whose governors had criticized him. Trump apparently wanted to lift COVID-19 restrictions because he wanted the short-term economic boost that might have helped his reëlection chances. But he also demonstrably, passionately, even desperately wanted a vaccine, and he wanted to take credit for it. His Administration poured money into Operation Warp Speed. And then they dropped the ball, for no reason that we can now see—likely because there is no real reason. Someone might have thought that it wasn’t his job. Someone might have wanted to spite Pfizer for refusing the money that Trump was so generously bestowing. Someone else might have assumed, overconfidently, that Pfizer could always be coerced later into producing the additional doses. Trump himself was most likely golfing.
I have written a lot of articles and several books about Russia’s transformation under Vladimir Putin, but the experience I’ve always found hardest to describe is one of feeling as if creativity and imagination were sucked out of society after he came to power. The reason is not so much censorship or even intimidation as it is indifference. When the state took over television, for example, it wasn’t just that the news was censored: it was that the new bosses didn’t care about the quality of the visuals or the writing. The same thing happened in other media, in architecture, in filmmaking. Life in an autocracy is, among other things, dull.
Nothing has reminded me of Russia quite so much as the Trump Administration’s belated effort to encourage Americans to vaccinate. It will build on an earlier effort to “defeat despair” about the pandemic, which either wasted or simply failed to spend more than a quarter of a billion dollars, because the officials involved tried to ideologically vet two hundred and seventy-four celebrities who may or may not have been asked to take part. Many, according to documents released by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, appeared to have been disqualified because they had been critical of Trump. Several said no, and only a handful, Dennis Quaid among them, accepted; Quaid then apparently backed out, and the campaign went dormant. Had it all been a scam? A particularly dumb version of a Hollywood witch-hunt? Probably not. It was probably another story about a President and an Administration that cares about slights but not about people.
Read More About the Presidential Transition


newyorker--2020-12-15--The Best Cookbooks of 2020

The Best Cookbooks of 2020

The African elephant holds the earthly record for the longest gestation period , a whopping six hundred and forty-five days of pregnancy , or just a few months shy of two years .
This happens also to be the approximate time it takes for an average cookbook to go from pitch to publication .
With schedules set so far in advance , each year ’ s crop of cookbooks serves as something of a time capsule : the trends , hopes , celebrities , and big ideas of a few years ago land on our kitchen counters , their fates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central conceits .
Who could have foreseen a worldwide pandemic coming and throwing everything—including the world of cookbooks—into chaotic , extraordinary realignment ?
( Besides , of course , all the folks who very clearly saw it coming . )
Major titles set to publish this past spring were postponed—some to the fall , some to next year , some indefinitely—and others were delayed as the spread of COVID-19 put printing and shipping infrastructures on pause .
The books that did come out on time , or maybe a little late , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promotional parade of bookstore events and in-person cook-alongs were replaced by Zoom events and Instagram Lives , and had to fight against a relentless litany of crises to get even a little space in the popular consciousness .
Still , despite it all , 2020 turned out to be a hell of a year for cookbooks .
Incidentally—almost eerily—many of the volumes released addressed the conundrums of quarantine cooking head on : roadmaps to D.I.Y .
bread baking and bean simmering ; inspiration for pantry fatigue ; ersatz replacements for beloved , out-of-reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling their own books , ways to help boost their free-fall bottom lines ) .
Cookbooks are always marvelous vehicles for armchair journeys , though from our current vantage the travel they facilitate is less geographic than chronological , conjuring a now-remote era of dinner parties , weekend jaunts , raucous celebrations , and crowded marketplaces .
Cookbooks have never been our only source of culinary guidance , and this year ’ s explosion in Instagram Live broadcasts , TikTok cooking demos , and cook-along Zoom sessions served as a reminder that recipes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there ’ s a particular beauty of scale to the best cookbooks , which , between front cover and back , have space for greater narrative arcs and can explore places and people and techniques in greater detail than a single video or blog post possibly can .
( Not to mention that , after eight or nine hours of staring at , talking into , and being talked at by a screen , one is relieved to turn one ’ s eyes to the relative tranquility of the paper page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I cooked at home this year more than I ever have before , and haven ’ t exactly loved every minute of it .
But one of the few reliable ways to coax back a spark of the old excitement was the pleasure of a new cookbook .
A note that the year ’ s crop of food writing included many marvelous drinks books and non-cookbooks ( such as John deBary ’ s razor-sharp “ Drink What You Want ” and Marcia Chatelain ’ s stunning “ Franchise : The Golden Arches in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t included here in this wholly subjective , completely personal , undoubtedly incomplete list , ordered alphabetically by author .
In a sprawling , journalistic first-person travelogue through Central Asia—punctuated with alluring and approachable recipes—Eden , who is based in Edinburgh , captures both the beauty and unease of travel with uncanny precision , accounting for small moments , great histories , and political tensions with a literary voice that often brushes against the sublime .
“ We left Aktau ’ s shoreline and its clinging marine air , driving through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the desert interior , a vast untamed spiritual geography , ” she writes of her entry into the great sweep of western Kazakhstan .
From there , she traces a journey through Uzbekistan , Kyrgyzstan , and Tajikistan , a cluster of nations precariously balanced between Russia and China , following paths set by pilgrims , farmers , and oil convoys , eating all the while : jewel-like fruits , pillowy pilafs , dense yogurt cheeses , and buttery dumplings .
This guidebook to all things sourdough , published in June , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with naturally leavened bread .
Ford , who made his name as a baking blogger , urges those of us in thrall to our starters to think beyond the boule : pretzel buns , masa focaccia , Puerto Rican mallorcas , airy challah—and , as I ’ d expect from Ford , who grew up in New Orleans , definitive takes on French bread , queen cake , and the dense-yet-airy rounds that house a muffuletta .
For beginners , the book ’ s encouraging first section goes through all the tools , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet never off-puttingly technical ) detail .
I think of myself as having cursed hands that murder sourdough starter at a touch , but under Ford ’ s patient , meticulous mentorship I actually turned out a tangy , hearty , truly gorgeous round of pan rustico .
The grandmother trope , when it comes to cooking , is well-worn with good reason—it ’ s reasonable , especially as the world becomes more industrialized and homogenized , that our elders are the keepers of domestic wisdom .
Here , Hassan interviewed grandmothers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , some still living in their homelands , at least one who ’ s never moved from the place she was born but who now , thanks to shifting international borders , technically resides in a different country than the one she was born in .
Hassan allowed each participating bibi to select her own recipes to share , and the result is a beautifully intimate portrait of home cooking across many homes : spiced fried fish , plantains with prawns , lasagna , cheddar-stuffed grilled cheese sandwiches spiked with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The African elephant holds the earthly record for the longest gestation period, a whopping six hundred and forty-five days of pregnancy, or just a few months shy of two years. This happens also to be the approximate time it takes for an average cookbook to go from pitch to publication. With schedules set so far in advance, each year’s crop of cookbooks serves as something of a time capsule: the trends, hopes, celebrities, and big ideas of a few years ago land on our kitchen counters, their fates tied to the staying power of their central conceits.
Who could have foreseen a worldwide pandemic coming and throwing everything—including the world of cookbooks—into chaotic, extraordinary realignment? (Besides, of course, all the folks who very clearly saw it coming.) Major titles set to publish this past spring were postponed—some to the fall, some to next year, some indefinitely—and others were delayed as the spread of COVID-19 put printing and shipping infrastructures on pause. The books that did come out on time, or maybe a little late, were born into a world where the usual promotional parade of bookstore events and in-person cook-alongs were replaced by Zoom events and Instagram Lives, and had to fight against a relentless litany of crises to get even a little space in the popular consciousness.
Still, despite it all, 2020 turned out to be a hell of a year for cookbooks. Incidentally—almost eerily—many of the volumes released addressed the conundrums of quarantine cooking head on: roadmaps to D.I.Y. bread baking and bean simmering; inspiration for pantry fatigue; ersatz replacements for beloved, out-of-reach restaurant dishes (plus, for restaurants selling their own books, ways to help boost their free-fall bottom lines). Cookbooks are always marvelous vehicles for armchair journeys, though from our current vantage the travel they facilitate is less geographic than chronological, conjuring a now-remote era of dinner parties, weekend jaunts, raucous celebrations, and crowded marketplaces.
2020 in Review New Yorker writers reflect on the year’s highs and lows.
Cookbooks have never been our only source of culinary guidance, and this year’s explosion in Instagram Live broadcasts, TikTok cooking demos, and cook-along Zoom sessions served as a reminder that recipes aren’t defined by their medium. But there’s a particular beauty of scale to the best cookbooks, which, between front cover and back, have space for greater narrative arcs and can explore places and people and techniques in greater detail than a single video or blog post possibly can. (Not to mention that, after eight or nine hours of staring at, talking into, and being talked at by a screen, one is relieved to turn one’s eyes to the relative tranquility of the paper page.) Like so many people, I cooked at home this year more than I ever have before, and haven’t exactly loved every minute of it. But one of the few reliable ways to coax back a spark of the old excitement was the pleasure of a new cookbook.
A note that the year’s crop of food writing included many marvelous drinks books and non-cookbooks (such as John deBary’s razor-sharp “Drink What You Want” and Marcia Chatelain’s stunning “Franchise: The Golden Arches in Black America”), which aren’t included here in this wholly subjective, completely personal, undoubtedly incomplete list, ordered alphabetically by author.
“Red Sands,” by Caroline Eden
In a sprawling, journalistic first-person travelogue through Central Asia—punctuated with alluring and approachable recipes—Eden, who is based in Edinburgh, captures both the beauty and unease of travel with uncanny precision, accounting for small moments, great histories, and political tensions with a literary voice that often brushes against the sublime. “We left Aktau’s shoreline and its clinging marine air, driving through the scrappy outskirts of the city, travelling into the desert interior, a vast untamed spiritual geography,” she writes of her entry into the great sweep of western Kazakhstan. From there, she traces a journey through Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, a cluster of nations precariously balanced between Russia and China, following paths set by pilgrims, farmers, and oil convoys, eating all the while: jewel-like fruits, pillowy pilafs, dense yogurt cheeses, and buttery dumplings.
“New World Sourdough,” by Bryan Ford
This guidebook to all things sourdough, published in June, was perfectly timed to the pandemic-fuelled obsession with naturally leavened bread. Ford, who made his name as a baking blogger, urges those of us in thrall to our starters to think beyond the boule: pretzel buns, masa focaccia, Puerto Rican mallorcas, airy challah—and, as I’d expect from Ford, who grew up in New Orleans, definitive takes on French bread, queen cake, and the dense-yet-airy rounds that house a muffuletta. For beginners, the book’s encouraging first section goes through all the tools, techniques, and troubleshooting in scrupulous (yet never off-puttingly technical) detail. I think of myself as having cursed hands that murder sourdough starter at a touch, but under Ford’s patient, meticulous mentorship I actually turned out a tangy, hearty, truly gorgeous round of pan rustico.
“In Bibi’s Kitchen,” by Hawa Hassan


newyorker--2020-12-15--Why Representative Mike Johnson Thinks That the Election Isn’t Over

On Monday , the Electoral College met , with a majority of electors voting for Biden .
But this doesn ’ t mean that the hundred and twenty-six Republican House members who signed on to the Texas case are ready to accept Biden ’ s victory .
I recently spoke by phone with Representative Mike Johnson , of Louisiana ’ s Fourth District .
A strong ally of the President , Johnson e-mailed his Republican colleagues , asking them to join the amicus brief and telling them that President Trump was “ anxiously awaiting the final list.
” Johnson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee and the vice-chair of the entire House Republican Conference .
Before taking office , Johnson worked as an attorney in the conservative Christian movement , representing organizations such as Freedom Guard and Alliance Defending Freedom .
( Johnson has twice defended Louisiana ’ s same-sex marriage ban before the state ’ s Supreme Court , first in 2004 and again in 2014 . )
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed why the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next move for Trump ’ s supporters , and what Johnson has learned about Trump ’ s dedication to the Constitution .
Why did you organize this effort ?
The simple issue raised in our brief was that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to address this one question that hangs over the election cycle this year , and that is : What is the meaning of the Constitution ’ s Electors Clause , Article II , Section 2 , Clause 1 ?
It didn ’ t come up in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
It was the underlying issue .
So many people were focussed on the trees .
When they zoomed out and looked at the forest , that was a cause of so much of the concern .
We wanted the Court to resolve it , not just for the current election cycle but for all elections in the future .
I was a constitutional-law attorney and litigator for twenty years before I got to Congress .
We used to debate about the nuances of meaning , but this is arguably some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It says it is only state legislatures that can set the rules for choosing electors .
Because they denied the case on standing , we now have this lingering question mark over this really important interpretation of the Constitution .
Many people will contend in the years to come that , because of the Court ’ s silence , it is O.K .
now—after two centuries—to play fast and loose with the rules .
What happened in 2020 , occasioned by COVID , is that public officials—in many cases , well-intentioned ones—tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the key point is that so much of it was done by other kinds of officials—governors , secretaries of state , judges—not the legislatures themselves .
The Framers were very careful about making that safeguard in the Constitution .
And , when you deviate from that , it opens a Pandora ’ s box to this kind of chaos .
The Supreme Court now has many conservative Justices .
And three of them were appointed by President Trump , all of whom you supported—and Amy Coney Barrett is a friend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think they didn ’ t go along with this or see it the way you do ?
And why is the Trump legal team ’ s record so bad in lower courts , too ?
I was a young volunteer in a big election lawsuit in Louisiana in the late nineties .
What I learned is that election fraud is hard to prove .
You have to have precision , and to do it in a very short time frame .
And you have to have evidence beyond refute , and affidavits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the Trump campaign—and the Biden campaign—had the lawyers lined up .
But , in this case , it appears that some of the larger law firms that might have been lined up early on , for whatever reason backed out , and Rudy Giuliani was in charge .
And I don ’ t think their army of lawyers was large enough .
I don ’ t know .
It ’ s a question , not a statement , but did they have enough lawyers who had experience in election-fraud challenges ?
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not so much that there are persons responsible for this .
Normally , an election-fraud case will be one Senate race .
Here , you had it happening across the country all simultaneously , and you had this very short window to prove it , and it was a scattershot , shotgun approach by necessity , and , because of that , it wasn ’ t successful .
The lawsuit states , “ Our Country stands at an important crossroads .
Either the Constitution matters and must be followed , even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of date , or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.
” The Justices that Trump chose and you supported seem unwilling to save the Constitution , according to the lawsuit itself .
Why aren ’ t they trying to save the country from descending into a nondemocratic hellscape ?
I would not concede that they are uninterested in that .
The problem is that you need the right vehicle to do that .
I thought it was very interesting what Alito and Thomas said .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have gotten at the merits .
• After the election , assaults on truth and the press continue .
• Lessons of failed power grabs , in America and overseas .
• Could banks bail us out of the climate crisis ?
They also said they would not “ grant other relief ” though , correct ?
Right , but that is all they gave us , and we can read into that whatever we choose .
It ’ s conjecture on our part .
That they wouldn ’ t grant a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election—yes , that would be an extreme request .
But what we were hoping is that they would take some aspect of this and make some sort of affirmative statement .
If they had just affirmed the plain meaning of the Electors Clause , that would solve all sorts of chaos going forward .
I say this for Americans of both parties or any party , or whoever they voted for : we all should have an interest in these very specific clauses of the Constitution being followed .
That was a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of following the Constitution closely .
Sure , sure .
Exactly .
As an aside , I was on a radio interview this morning and was asked , “ What do we do now ?
Don ’ t we need to beat them at their own game ?
” And what is implied is , “ They cheated ; we need to cheat better than they do.
” And my response is , “ Wait a minute .
We are supposed to be the Party that stands for the rule of law.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is clean it up and make sure the hijinks don ’ t happen in the future .
But , unfortunately , the best way to do that with a silver bullet is to have the highest court in the land adjudicate it .
And , if we don ’ t have that opportunity , we have to use other means , and it is going to be a great challenge .
Trump , if you look at his Twitter feed , says there is a conspiracy , essentially , to deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any concern that people within his own Administration , or the Justices he appointed , are part of some conspiracy ?
I don ’ t see a grand conspiracy .
What I see is a lot of chaos and confusion across the land , and the result is that this election will have this giant question mark hanging over it .
I saw a new poll : a huge amount of the country doubts the election and thinks it was stolen from Donald Trump .
Thirty-six per cent of registered voters in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a problem .
Whether it was stolen or not , the fact that such a huge swath of the country believes that it was is something that should keep all of us up at night .
Would one solution to that be for people to stop saying it was stolen before knowing if it actually was ?
Would that alleviate it ?
In an ideal world , of course .
And I am a lawyer .
I don ’ t engage in conspiracy theory .
I want to deal in fact and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts have had such a difficult time having courts actually review the evidence .
Some were kicked out on standing .
It takes a while .
It is a very detailed challenge to actually prove fraud in an election .
It takes time and has to be methodical , and I don ’ t think that happened in all these cases .
And I think that ’ s why people have all these lingering doubts .

Last week, the Republican attorney general of Texas, with support from Republican attorneys general in eighteen other states, filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the election in four swing states that favored Joe Biden. The lawsuit, which called the vote “illegitimate,” claimed that the states’ legislatures, rather than voters, should choose their electors. This claim garnered the support of more than sixty per cent of House Republicans, who signed an amicus brief. But, on Friday evening, the Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit, saying that Texas had no standing in the matter. (Justice Samuel Alito, in a statement joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the Court had a responsibility to take up the lawsuit but that he would not “grant other relief.”)
On Monday, the Electoral College met, with a majority of electors voting for Biden. But this doesn’t mean that the hundred and twenty-six Republican House members who signed on to the Texas case are ready to accept Biden’s victory. I recently spoke by phone with Representative Mike Johnson, of Louisiana’s Fourth District. A strong ally of the President, Johnson e-mailed his Republican colleagues, asking them to join the amicus brief and telling them that President Trump was “anxiously awaiting the final list.” Johnson, who won his third term in November, is the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee and the vice-chair of the entire House Republican Conference. Before taking office, Johnson worked as an attorney in the conservative Christian movement, representing organizations such as Freedom Guard and Alliance Defending Freedom. (Johnson has twice defended Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban before the state’s Supreme Court, first in 2004 and again in 2014.) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the case, the next move for Trump’s supporters, and what Johnson has learned about Trump’s dedication to the Constitution.
Why did you organize this effort?
The simple issue raised in our brief was that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to address this one question that hangs over the election cycle this year, and that is: What is the meaning of the Constitution’s Electors Clause, Article II, Section [1], Clause [2]?
It didn’t come up in the debates, but it was the underlying issue.
It was the underlying issue. So many people were focussed on the trees. When they zoomed out and looked at the forest, that was a cause of so much of the concern. We wanted the Court to resolve it, not just for the current election cycle but for all elections in the future. I was a constitutional-law attorney and litigator for twenty years before I got to Congress. We used to debate about the nuances of meaning, but this is arguably some of the clearest phraseology in the Constitution itself. It says it is only state legislatures that can set the rules for choosing electors. Because they denied the case on standing, we now have this lingering question mark over this really important interpretation of the Constitution. Many people will contend in the years to come that, because of the Court’s silence, it is O.K. now—after two centuries—to play fast and loose with the rules.
What happened in 2020, occasioned by COVID, is that public officials—in many cases, well-intentioned ones—tried to expand the ways we do elections. But the key point is that so much of it was done by other kinds of officials—governors, secretaries of state, judges—not the legislatures themselves. The Framers were very careful about making that safeguard in the Constitution. And, when you deviate from that, it opens a Pandora’s box to this kind of chaos.
The Supreme Court now has many conservative Justices. And three of them were appointed by President Trump, all of whom you supported—and Amy Coney Barrett is a friend of yours, right?
Yeah.
So why do you think they didn’t go along with this or see it the way you do? And why is the Trump legal team’s record so bad in lower courts, too?
I was a young volunteer in a big election lawsuit in Louisiana in the late nineties. What I learned is that election fraud is hard to prove. You have to have precision, and to do it in a very short time frame. And you have to have evidence beyond refute, and affidavits by witnesses that have credibility. I think the Trump campaign—and the Biden campaign—had the lawyers lined up. But, in this case, it appears that some of the larger law firms that might have been lined up early on, for whatever reason backed out, and Rudy Giuliani was in charge. And I don’t think their army of lawyers was large enough. I don’t know. It’s a question, not a statement, but did they have enough lawyers who had experience in election-fraud challenges? This is not to blame anyone. It is not so much that there are persons responsible for this. Normally, an election-fraud case will be one Senate race. Here, you had it happening across the country all simultaneously, and you had this very short window to prove it, and it was a scattershot, shotgun approach by necessity, and, because of that, it wasn’t successful.
The lawsuit states, “Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.” The Justices that Trump chose and you supported seem unwilling to save the Constitution, according to the lawsuit itself. Why aren’t they trying to save the country from descending into a nondemocratic hellscape?
I would not concede that they are uninterested in that. The problem is that you need the right vehicle to do that. I thought it was very interesting what Alito and Thomas said. They were acknowledging that perhaps some of this should have gotten at the merits.
Editor’s Picks
They also said they would not “grant other relief” though, correct?
Right, but that is all they gave us, and we can read into that whatever we choose. It’s conjecture on our part. That they wouldn’t grant a relief, arguably, of overturning the election—yes, that would be an extreme request. But what we were hoping is that they would take some aspect of this and make some sort of affirmative statement. If they had just affirmed the plain meaning of the Electors Clause, that would solve all sorts of chaos going forward. I say this for Americans of both parties or any party, or whoever they voted for: we all should have an interest in these very specific clauses of the Constitution being followed.
That was a big thing about why people supported Trump originally—the importance of following the Constitution closely.
Sure, sure. Exactly. As an aside, I was on a radio interview this morning and was asked, “What do we do now? Don’t we need to beat them at their own game?” And what is implied is, “They cheated; we need to cheat better than they do.” And my response is, “Wait a minute. We are supposed to be the Party that stands for the rule of law.”
The Party of Lincoln.
Exactly. What we are supposed to do is clean it up and make sure the hijinks don’t happen in the future. But, unfortunately, the best way to do that with a silver bullet is to have the highest court in the land adjudicate it. And, if we don’t have that opportunity, we have to use other means, and it is going to be a great challenge.


newyorker--2020-12-16--Lessons from the Unpresidential Transition to Apply to Your Love Life

If you ’ re interested in dating lawyers , you can just download the League or EliteSingles .
You don ’ t need to file eight hundred and forty-two baseless lawsuits just to meet more of them .
Specify the exact address of a first date .
You don ’ t want your crush to get lost or confused—because , honestly , there are a lot of Four Seasons .
Also , your date is at a Four Seasons ?
You nabbed a rich one—nice .
Don ’ t steal toilet paper from a restaurant .
Stockpiling may have created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the pandemic , but now America actually has someone interested in protecting our asses .
Just because certain people in the White House are hoarding and hiding national-security reports doesn ’ t mean that you have to do the same with your paper goods .
Instead of negotiating how to split the check after a meal , spend your energy hashing out who will donate to the Reverend Raphael Warnock ’ s campaign and who will contribute to Jon Ossoff ’ s .
Working together to fight for a better Senate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also it ’ s a great way to distract your date as he or she just pays the whole bill .
If your date invites you home for a nightcap , do not barricade yourself in the bathroom , introducing the possibility that you will need to be forcibly removed .
You really want to save the handcuff imagery for consensual activities in the bedroom .
If you ’ ve tried twenty-two times across nine states to turn your vibrator on and it still won ’ t start , you need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more lawyers , and definitely don ’ t keep turning it on and off—it ’ s dead .
You ’ re allowed to declare your relationship “ official ” even if your new partner ’ s ex has not accepted their breakup .
Some people just never accept the results , no matter how much evidence suggests it ’ s over .
( You ’ re still not allowed to declare your relationship “ official ” if your new partner doesn ’ t want to , unfortunately . )
If you run into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really well since your breakup , take credit for the way that his or her life has improved since meeting you !
Same goes for the stock market .
If your friends support every crazy idea that flits through your head , they are bad friends .
If they tell you it ’ s O.K .
to sleep with your toxic ex , they ’ re bad friends .
If they tell you it ’ s O.K .
to keep contesting in court an election that was called more than a month ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or bad offspring .
Or Mitch McConnell—the baddest friend of all .
You may feel especially desperate for affection after so much isolation , but texting “ STOP LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE ON TINDER ” or “ STOP COUNTING THEIR VOTES ” will only push people away .
Do not attempt to hide out on a golf course from lovers you ’ ve scorned .
We can all see you .
Everyone needs a little bit of time to grieve the end of a relationship .
If you ’ re going to dispute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so in private and not on social media .
Definitely don ’ t talk about it with a reporter from the New York Times .
Or OANN .
Actually , don ’ t ever say anything to a reporter from OANN .
Ah , well , now that the relationship has gone down in flames , at least you can take your pants off again .

With a widely accessible COVID-19 vaccine on the horizon, it’s time to consider the daunting possibility that we may have to start wearing pants on first dates again. You likely have forgotten how, but fear not—our soon-to-be-ex-Commander-in-Chief has set a shining example of what not to do as you reintegrate into society. There’s much that we can learn from his transition out of office.
If you’re interested in dating lawyers, you can just download the League or EliteSingles. You don’t need to file eight hundred and forty-two baseless lawsuits just to meet more of them.
Specify the exact address of a first date. You don’t want your crush to get lost or confused—because, honestly, there are a lot of Four Seasons. Also, your date is at a Four Seasons? You nabbed a rich one—nice.
Don’t steal toilet paper from a restaurant. Stockpiling may have created the illusion of security for your butt during the pandemic, but now America actually has someone interested in protecting our asses. Just because certain people in the White House are hoarding and hiding national-security reports doesn’t mean that you have to do the same with your paper goods.
Instead of negotiating how to split the check after a meal, spend your energy hashing out who will donate to the Reverend Raphael Warnock’s campaign and who will contribute to Jon Ossoff’s. Working together to fight for a better Senate is a great litmus test for a relationship. Also it’s a great way to distract your date as he or she just pays the whole bill. If your date invites you home for a nightcap, do not barricade yourself in the bathroom, introducing the possibility that you will need to be forcibly removed. You really want to save the handcuff imagery for consensual activities in the bedroom.
If you’ve tried twenty-two times across nine states to turn your vibrator on and it still won’t start, you need a new one. Don’t hire more lawyers, and definitely don’t keep turning it on and off—it’s dead.
You’re allowed to declare your relationship “official” even if your new partner’s ex has not accepted their breakup. Some people just never accept the results, no matter how much evidence suggests it’s over. (You’re still not allowed to declare your relationship “official” if your new partner doesn’t want to, unfortunately.)
If you run into an ex who claims to be doing really well since your breakup, take credit for the way that his or her life has improved since meeting you! Same goes for the stock market.
If your friends support every crazy idea that flits through your head, they are bad friends. If they tell you it’s O.K. to sleep with your toxic ex, they’re bad friends. If they tell you it’s O.K. to keep contesting in court an election that was called more than a month ago, they’re bad friends. Or bad offspring. Or Mitch McConnell—the baddest friend of all.
You may feel especially desperate for affection after so much isolation, but texting “STOP LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE ON TINDER” or “STOP COUNTING THEIR VOTES” will only push people away.
Do not attempt to hide out on a golf course from lovers you’ve scorned. We can all see you.
Everyone needs a little bit of time to grieve the end of a relationship. If you’re going to dispute the results and/or plan a coup, do so in private and not on social media. Definitely don’t talk about it with a reporter from the New York Times. Or OANN. Actually, don’t ever say anything to a reporter from OANN.
Ah, well, now that the relationship has gone down in flames, at least you can take your pants off again.


newyorker--2020-12-16--Margaret Atwood Reads Saeed Jones

Margaret Atwood Reads Saeed Jones

Margaret Atwood joins Kevin Young to read “ A Stranger , ” by Saeed Jones , and her own poem @ @ @ @ @ a prolific poet and novelist , is known for brilliant books such as “ The @ @ @ @ @ and “ The Blind Assassin.
” Her many distinctions include the Los Angeles Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ the Franz Kafka Prize , the PEN Center U.S.A. ’ s lifetime-achievement award , and @ @ @ @ @ Prizes , most recently for “ The Testaments.
” “ Dearly , ” her first @ @ @ @ @ than a decade , came out in November .

Download a transcript.
Photograph by Rosdiana Ciaravolo / Getty
Margaret Atwood joins Kevin Young to read “A Stranger,” by Saeed Jones, and her own poem “Flatline.” Atwood, a prolific poet and novelist, is known for brilliant books such as “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “The Blind Assassin.” Her many distinctions include the Los Angeles Times’ Innovator’s Award, the Franz Kafka Prize, the PEN Center U.S.A.’s lifetime-achievement award, and not one but two Booker Prizes, most recently for “The Testaments.” “Dearly,” her first collection of poetry in more than a decade, came out in November.


newyorker--2020-12-16--The Top Twenty-five New Yorker Stories of 2020

On the evening of Tuesday , March 10th , as the threat of the novel coronavirus became increasingly plain in New York City , the staff of The New Yorker went home and never returned to our offices in One World Trade Center .
The final editing , fact-checking , and other work on the following week ’ s issue––the cover depicted domino pieces in a pattern resembling the novel coronavirus––took place remotely .
Over the next nine months , an unrelenting onslaught of news consumed the country––and The New Yorker .
As of this writing , the magazine ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ print issues and published an additional three and a half million words online , all while collaborating day after day through squares on our laptop screens .
To mark the end of this uniquely trying year , we are sharing a list of the most popular New Yorker pieces of the past twelve months .
( Just as we did last year , we are using a metric that tracks what people read on their way to subscribing . )
Piece by piece , the list encapsulates what we have endured .
Carolyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , published in late March , is the earliest pandemic-related article ; others include Michael Specter ’ s profile of Dr. Anthony Fauci , Charles Duhigg ’ s investigation of the differing responses to early outbreaks in Seattle and New York , and two pieces by Atul Gawande on how to manage the spread of the disease .
The list also reflects dramatic events that weren ’ t directly connected to the pandemic .
During the racial-justice protests that roiled the country over the summer , James Baldwin ’ s classic “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” first published in 1962 , found a new generation of readers .
A more recent piece from the magazine ’ s archives , Dexter Filkins ’ s 2013 profile of Qassem Suleimani , the Iranian intelligence commander , made the list after Suleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike , in January .
This year ’ s Presidential election unfolded like none other in American history .
Jane Mayer ’ s examination of Mitch McConnell ’ s alliance with Donald Trump topped the list , followed by her piece detailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuits that await the President after he leaves office .
Mayer ’ s third piece in the top twenty-five focussed on the sexual-harassment allegations against Kimberly Guilfoyle that led to her departure from Fox News .
This year also marked the first Presidential election in which The New Yorker ’ s Web site hosted a live results map , which made the top five .
Another reader favorite : Lizzie Widdicombe ’ s piece from before the vote , which dropped in on a Zoom training session about how to beat an election-related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revisited a previous , less frightening epoch in American politics , President Obama published an excerpt of his latest memoir , “ A Promised Land , ” in The New Yorker , detailing his bruising battle to reform health care .
In the midst of so many travails , and with readers mostly stuck at home , it ’ s clear that many were looking for diversion .
Richard Brody ’ s list of the forty best movies on Netflix made the top ten , as did Michael Schulman ’ s interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of staying at home and doing nothing.
” A satirical piece on the list , by Andy Borowitz , reported that Fauci recommended administering alcohol to survive the White House ’ s coronavirus briefings .
Over the past year , the magazine published a series of pieces on the future of American democracy , beginning with an essay by Jill Lepore , published in January , which looked back at America in the nineteen-thirties , another period of great anxiety about the fragility of democratic institutions .
At year ’ s end—with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as the country begins the long process of recovering from his Presidency—her admonition still resonates : “ Don ’ t ask whether you need an umbrella .
Go outside and stop the rain.
” I hope that you enjoy each of these pieces—and that , if you ’ re not already a subscriber , you ’ ll consider becoming one and supporting our journalism .
The Senate Majority Leader ’ s refusal to rein in the President is looking riskier than ever .
The President has survived one impeachment , twenty-six accusations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four thousand lawsuits .
That run of good luck may well end , perhaps brutally , if Joe Biden wins .
The latest news and updates from the 2020 Presidential , Senate , House , and gubernatorial races .
Health-care workers have been on the job throughout the pandemic .
What can they teach us about the safest way to lift a lockdown ?
SARS-CoV-2 , which honed its viral genome for thousands of years , behaves like a monstrous mutant hybrid of all the coronaviruses that came before it .
Fauci ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports indicating that Americans have been alleviating symptoms in a similar manner since November , 2016 .
Just as mud is a good place to find gold nuggets , Netflix , with some careful sifting , is a good place to find great movies .
The writer on growing old , life in quarantine , and the sadness of seeing her city shut down .
A former assistant at the network accused Guilfoyle , one of the Trump campaign ’ s top fund-raising officials , of sexual harassment—and of attempting to buy her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the East and West Coasts emerged at roughly the same time .
But the danger was communicated very differently .
An infectious-disease expert ’ s long crusade against some of humanity ’ s most virulent threats .
What Singapore ’ s and Hong Kong ’ s success is teaching us about the pandemic .
To understand the President ’ s path to the 2020 election , look at what he has provided the country ’ s executive class .
Deanna Dikeman ’ s portrait series doubles as a family album , compressing nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a deft and affecting chronology .
The Justice stressed , however , that Trump would still be allowed to weigh in on other important decisions , like “ what to eat and which channel to watch.
” Citizens prepare to take on a would-be regime .
COVID-19 poses a unique threat to an age group that , whether they admit it or not , includes them .
Whatever white people do not know about Negroes reveals , precisely and inexorably , what they do not know about themselves .
Learning from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the Obama Administration ’ s most enduring—and most contested—legacy : reforming American health care .
How social media , FaceTune , and plastic surgery created a single , cyborgian look .
Richard Epstein , a professor at N.Y.U .
School of Law , discusses two articles he wrote , “ Coronavirus Perspective ” and “ Coronavirus Overreaction , ” and his views of the pandemic .
A writer reckons with the different forms of loss .
For years , the elusive singer-songwriter has been working , at home , on an album @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But is she prepared to release it into the world ?
• Ian Crouch recounts the best jokes of the year .
• Sheldon Pearce on the albums that helped him navigate a lost plague year .
• New Yorker writers on the best books they read this year .
• Amanda Petrusich counts down the best music .

On the evening of Tuesday, March 10th, as the threat of the novel coronavirus became increasingly plain in New York City, the staff of The New Yorker went home and never returned to our offices in One World Trade Center. The final editing, fact-checking, and other work on the following week’s issue––the cover depicted domino pieces in a pattern resembling the novel coronavirus––took place remotely. Over the next nine months, an unrelenting onslaught of news consumed the country––and The New Yorker. As of this writing, the magazine’s editorial staff has put out thirty-five print issues and published an additional three and a half million words online, all while collaborating day after day through squares on our laptop screens.
2020 in Review New Yorker writers reflect on the year’s highs and lows.
To mark the end of this uniquely trying year, we are sharing a list of the most popular New Yorker pieces of the past twelve months. (Just as we did last year, we are using a metric that tracks what people read on their way to subscribing.) Piece by piece, the list encapsulates what we have endured. Carolyn Kormann’s portrait of the novel coronavirus, published in late March, is the earliest pandemic-related article on it; others include Michael Specter’s profile of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Charles Duhigg’s investigation of the differing responses to early outbreaks in Seattle and New York, and two pieces by Atul Gawande on how to manage the spread of the disease.
The list also reflects dramatic events that weren’t directly connected to the pandemic. During the racial-justice protests that roiled the country over the summer, James Baldwin’s classic “Letter from a Region in My Mind,” first published in 1962, found a new generation of readers. A more recent piece from the magazine’s archives, Dexter Filkins’s 2013 profile of Qassem Suleimani, the Iranian intelligence commander, made the list after Suleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike, in January.
This year’s Presidential election unfolded like none other in American history. Jane Mayer’s examination of Mitch McConnell’s alliance with Donald Trump topped the list, followed by her piece detailing more than a dozen investigations and civil lawsuits that await the President after he leaves office. Mayer’s third piece in the top twenty-five focussed on the sexual-harassment allegations against Kimberly Guilfoyle that led to her departure from Fox News. This year also marked the first Presidential election in which The New Yorker’s Web site hosted a live results map, which made the top five. Another reader favorite: Lizzie Widdicombe’s piece from before the vote, which dropped in on a Zoom training session about how to beat an election-related power grab. In a piece that revisited a previous, less frightening epoch in American politics, President Barack Obama published an excerpt of his latest memoir, “A Promised Land,” in The New Yorker, detailing his bruising battle to reform health care.
In the midst of so many travails, and with readers mostly stuck at home, it’s clear that many were looking for diversion. Richard Brody’s list of the forty best movies on Netflix made the top ten, as did Michael Schulman’s interview with Fran Lebowitz, the “patron saint of staying at home and doing nothing.” A satirical piece on the list, by Andy Borowitz, reported that Fauci recommended administering alcohol to survive the White House’s coronavirus briefings.
Over the past year, the magazine published a series of pieces on the future of American democracy, beginning with an essay by Jill Lepore, published in January, which looked back at America in the nineteen-thirties, another period of great anxiety about the fragility of democratic institutions. At year’s end—with Trump still refusing to concede the election, and as the country begins the long process of recovering from his Presidency—her admonition still resonates: “Don’t ask whether you need an umbrella. Go outside and stop the rain.”
I hope that you enjoy each of these pieces—and that, if you’re not already a subscriber, you’ll consider becoming one and supporting our journalism.
The Senate Majority Leader’s refusal to rein in the President is looking riskier than ever.
The President has survived one impeachment, twenty-six accusations of sexual misconduct, and an estimated four thousand lawsuits. That run of good luck may well end, perhaps brutally, if Joe Biden wins.
The latest news and updates from the 2020 Presidential, Senate, House, and gubernatorial races.
Illustrations by MGMT. design
Health-care workers have been on the job throughout the pandemic. What can they teach us about the safest way to lift a lockdown?
SARS-CoV-2, which honed its viral genome for thousands of years, behaves like a monstrous mutant hybrid of all the coronaviruses that came before it.
Qassem Suleimani, the Iranian operative, reshaped the Middle East.
Fauci’s findings are in line with anecdotal reports indicating that Americans have been alleviating symptoms in a similar manner since November, 2016.
Just as mud is a good place to find gold nuggets, Netflix, with some careful sifting, is a good place to find great movies.
The writer on growing old, life in quarantine, and the sadness of seeing her city shut down.


newyorker--2020-12-17--William Barr Is Going, But His Trumpian Legacy Remains

Last week , it emerged that Barr had known for months that investigations of Hunter Biden ’ s taxes and financial dealings had been opened , but he adhered to a long-standing Justice Department practice and did not disclose any information that could influence the outcome of a pending election .
After Biden won , Barr refused to confirm Trump ’ s baseless claims that the contest had been stolen from him .
This weekend , Trump blamed his Attorney General for his defeat .
“ Why didn ’ t Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump tweeted .
“ Big disadvantage for Republicans at the polls !
” On Monday , the two men engaged in political pantomime .
In the tweet announcing Barr ’ s departure , Trump said that they had just had a “ very nice meeting ” and said Barr had done “ an outstanding job.
” Barr released an effusive resignation letter that hailed Trump ’ s “ unprecedented achievements ” despite “ a partisan onslaught ” that “ few could have weathered ” and “ in which no tactic , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of bounds.
” A senior law-enforcement official , who asked not to be named , described the exchange to me as scripted : “ I think that this was a negotiated departure .
The President was clearly frustrated .
The A.G. was clearly frustrated.
” Former Justice Departments officials and legal experts were unequivocal in their assessment of Barr ’ s legacy .
They credited him for breaking with Trump in the prelude to and aftermath of the election .
But they predicted that he would go down in history as one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorneys General .
“ The few times Barr put the nation ahead of the President will not atone for the many times he chose the opposite .
He leaves a wounded department , ” Stephen Gillers , an expert in legal ethics at New York University School of Law , told me .
“ His tenure as Attorney General will be akin to the plague years at the Justice Department , ” David Laufman , a former Justice Department official , said .
“ I think his tenure has been an indefensible and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Ayer , a former Deputy Attorney General , noted .
( The senior law-enforcement official was more magnanimous , calling Barr ’ s legacy a “ mixed bag.
” ) A spokesperson for Barr did not respond to a request for comment .
What made Barr unusual were the disparate qualities he exhibited as Attorney General .
He was aggressive , competent , and astute ; even critics admitted that at times his legal machinations were “ devilishly clever.
” He was also not simply a Trump acolyte .
For decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : he adamantly opposes the Supreme Court activism of the nineteen-sixties and seventies that legalized abortion , curtailed the powers of the President , and , he has contended , reduced the freedoms enjoyed by religiously observant Americans .
He was a committed Reagan-era conservative , fervently advocating a law-and-order approach to criminal justice , including strong public support for the police , the use of overwhelming force to restore order , and the employment of the death penalty .
What emerged unexpectedly in the Trump era was his willingness to act in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically aid the President he served , a pattern reminiscent of John Mitchell , Richard Nixon ’ s Attorney General .
The result was a dizzying array of actions in the twenty-two months that Barr has spent in the office .
He distorted the findings of the Mueller report , reduced the penalties faced by Trump loyalists whom Mueller prosecuted , expanded the Administration ’ s immigration crackdown , attempted to restrict access to abortion , aided attempts to win public funding for religious schools , executed more federal prisoners than any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled against Trump , defied congressional oversight , said that organized religion was under “ assault ” from the liberal élite , vastly exaggerated the role of Antifa protesters in last summer ’ s marches for racial justice , reportedly ordered the police operation that enabled Trump ’ s Bible photo-op in Lafayette Square , called pandemic stay-at-home orders the “ greatest intrusion on civil liberties ” since slavery , said a Trump reëlection loss would plunge the country “ irrevocably ” down a “ socialist path , ” and warned that mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fraud .
Ayer , the former Deputy Attorney General , said that Barr undermined decades of Justice Department practice aimed at giving Americans confidence that the law applies equally to all citizens .
“ Throughout much of 2020 , there was the Attorney General , using the department ’ s resources and his own bully pulpit to echo and reinforce the President ’ s campaign narrative , ” Ayer said .
“ He did so many things this year that an Attorney General should never do.
” The senior law-enforcement official countered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a strong Presidency is necessary in order to insure effective government , and that judges often curtail a President ’ s ability to implement policy .
In speeches , he has said that congressional oversight and the appointment of special counsels have become so politicized that the party in opposition uses them to lay relentless political siege to the Administration in power .
The official told me that Barr really thinks that the F.B.I.
’ s 2016 investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia should never have been conducted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a reflection of Barr ’ s belief that F.B.I .
directors , who officially report to the Attorney General , have become too independent .
“ He truly believes that some of the things the F.B.I .
did was wrong , ” the official said , referring to the Trump-Russia investigation .
“ I think he wanted to rein in the F.B.I .
more.
” The problem with Barr ’ s views of the Trump-Russia investigation is that they fly in the face of fact .
They are , in short , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia did intervene to aid Trump in the 2016 campaign , and that Trump campaign officials had met with a Russian intelligence officer or with individuals with ties to the Russian government .
A review by the Justice Department ’ s inspector general found that the F.B.I .
investigation was legally justified , given the actions of Trump ’ s associates .
Yet Barr , in a move that pleased the President , launched a criminal investigation of F.B.I .
officials who opened the Trump-Russia probe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the federal prosecutor conducting that investigation , a special counsel , which will prevent Biden ’ s Attorney General from significantly limiting his work .
Attention now turns to Barr ’ s successor , Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen , who will serve in the post during the final four weeks of Trump ’ s Presidency .
Trump will likely pressure him to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hunter Biden , to keep alive his dark claims of election theft , Biden-family graft , and vast corruption on the part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record does not inspire confidence in his ability to resist Trump .
A staunch conservative who has never worked as a prosecutor , Rosen played a leading role in the Justice Department effort to block the publication of the former national-security adviser John Bolton ’ s unflattering memoir of his time in a dysfunctional Trump White House .
Barr deserves credit for refusing to go along with Trump ’ s post-election de-facto coup attempt .
But he also exacerbated the explosion of “ alternative facts ” in the Trump era .
At a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts were already rampant among Americans , Barr used his position as a fact-finder to increase discord , not ease it .
He decried the special-counsel probe and other investigations of Trump as politically motivated inquisitions .
Whatever his intentions , his legacy will be that he then unleashed those same demons .
Barr has extended the cycle of politically motivated investigations that increasingly plague American politics .

On Monday, William Barr’s nearly two-year tenure as Donald Trump’s Attorney General came to an abrupt end. The President, true to form, announced the departure of yet another senior official via Twitter. Pundits described Trump’s timing—he posted the tweet twelve minutes after the Electoral College had affirmed Joe Biden’s election—as that of a petty narcissist trying to regain the spotlight. Barr’s motive for resigning was less clear, but, for weeks, reports had circulated that the two men were barely speaking. Barr, once the most feared, criticized, and effective member of Trump’s Cabinet appeared to have finally broken with the President, and resigned.
Last week, it emerged that Barr had known for months that investigations of Hunter Biden’s taxes and financial dealings had been opened, but he adhered to a long-standing Justice Department practice and did not disclose any information that could influence the outcome of a pending election. After Biden won, Barr refused to confirm Trump’s baseless claims that the contest had been stolen from him. This weekend, Trump blamed his Attorney General for his defeat. “Why didn’t Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public, before the Election, about Hunter Biden,” Trump tweeted. “Big disadvantage for Republicans at the polls!”
On Monday, the two men engaged in political pantomime. In the tweet announcing Barr’s departure, Trump said that they had just had a “very nice meeting” and said Barr had done “an outstanding job.” Barr released an effusive resignation letter that hailed Trump’s “unprecedented achievements” despite “a partisan onslaught” that “few could have weathered” and “in which no tactic, no matter how abusive and deceitful, was out of bounds.” A senior law-enforcement official, who asked not to be named, described the exchange to me as scripted: “I think that this was a negotiated departure. The President was clearly frustrated. The A.G. was clearly frustrated.”
Former Justice Departments officials and legal experts were unequivocal in their assessment of Barr’s legacy. They credited him for breaking with Trump in the prelude to and aftermath of the election. But they predicted that he would go down in history as one of the country’s most destructive Attorneys General. “The few times Barr put the nation ahead of the President will not atone for the many times he chose the opposite. He leaves a wounded department,” Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University School of Law, told me. “His tenure as Attorney General will be akin to the plague years at the Justice Department,” David Laufman, a former Justice Department official, said. “I think his tenure has been an indefensible and disgraceful betrayal of long-established norms,” Donald Ayer, a former Deputy Attorney General, noted. (The senior law-enforcement official was more magnanimous, calling Barr’s legacy a “mixed bag.”) A spokesperson for Barr did not respond to a request for comment.
What made Barr unusual were the disparate qualities he exhibited as Attorney General. He was aggressive, competent, and astute; even critics admitted that at times his legal machinations were “devilishly clever.” He was also not simply a Trump acolyte. For decades, Barr has had a consistent legal philosophy: he adamantly opposes the Supreme Court activism of the nineteen-sixties and seventies that legalized abortion, curtailed the powers of the President, and, he has contended, reduced the freedoms enjoyed by religiously observant Americans. He was a committed Reagan-era conservative, fervently advocating a law-and-order approach to criminal justice, including strong public support for the police, the use of overwhelming force to restore order, and the employment of the death penalty. What emerged unexpectedly in the Trump era was his willingness to act in a nakedly partisan manner in order to politically aid the President he served, a pattern reminiscent of John Mitchell, Richard Nixon’s Attorney General.
The result was a dizzying array of actions in the twenty-two months that Barr has spent in the office. He distorted the findings of the Mueller report, reduced the penalties faced by Trump loyalists whom Mueller prosecuted, expanded the Administration’s immigration crackdown, attempted to restrict access to abortion, aided attempts to win public funding for religious schools, executed more federal prisoners than any of his modern predecessors, criticized judges who ruled against Trump, defied congressional oversight, said that organized religion was under “assault” from the liberal élite, vastly exaggerated the role of Antifa protesters in last summer’s marches for racial justice, reportedly ordered the police operation that enabled Trump’s Bible photo-op in Lafayette Square, called pandemic stay-at-home orders the “greatest intrusion on civil liberties” since slavery, said a Trump reëlection loss would plunge the country “irrevocably” down a “socialist path,” and warned that mail-in ballots would “open the floodgates” to fraud.
Ayer, the former Deputy Attorney General, said that Barr undermined decades of Justice Department practice aimed at giving Americans confidence that the law applies equally to all citizens. “Throughout much of 2020, there was the Attorney General, using the department’s resources and his own bully pulpit to echo and reinforce the President’s campaign narrative,” Ayer said. “He did so many things this year that an Attorney General should never do.”
The senior law-enforcement official countered that Barr is sincere in his belief that a strong Presidency is necessary in order to insure effective government, and that judges often curtail a President’s ability to implement policy. In speeches, he has said that congressional oversight and the appointment of special counsels have become so politicized that the party in opposition uses them to lay relentless political siege to the Administration in power. The official told me that Barr really thinks that the F.B.I.’s 2016 investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia should never have been conducted. This last point is, in part, a reflection of Barr’s belief that F.B.I. directors, who officially report to the Attorney General, have become too independent. “He truly believes that some of the things the F.B.I. did was wrong,” the official said, referring to the Trump-Russia investigation. “I think he wanted to rein in the F.B.I. more.”
The problem with Barr’s views of the Trump-Russia investigation is that they fly in the face of fact. They are, in short, Trumpian. The exhaustive investigations by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia did intervene to aid Trump in the 2016 campaign, and that Trump campaign officials had met with a Russian intelligence officer or with individuals with ties to the Russian government. A review by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the F.B.I. investigation was legally justified, given the actions of Trump’s associates. Yet Barr, in a move that pleased the President, launched a criminal investigation of F.B.I. officials who opened the Trump-Russia probe. In October, he made John Durham, the federal prosecutor conducting that investigation, a special counsel, which will prevent Biden’s Attorney General from significantly limiting his work.
Attention now turns to Barr’s successor, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who will serve in the post during the final four weeks of Trump’s Presidency. Trump will likely pressure him to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hunter Biden, to keep alive his dark claims of election theft, Biden-family graft, and vast corruption on the part of the liberal élite. Rosen’s record does not inspire confidence in his ability to resist Trump. A staunch conservative who has never worked as a prosecutor, Rosen played a leading role in the Justice Department effort to block the publication of the former national-security adviser John Bolton’s unflattering memoir of his time in a dysfunctional Trump White House.
Barr deserves credit for refusing to go along with Trump’s post-election de-facto coup attempt. But he also exacerbated the explosion of “alternative facts” in the Trump era. At a time when division and confusion regarding basic facts were already rampant among Americans, Barr used his position as a fact-finder to increase discord, not ease it. He decried the special-counsel probe and other investigations of Trump as politically motivated inquisitions. Whatever his intentions, his legacy will be that he then unleashed those same demons. Barr has extended the cycle of politically motivated investigations that increasingly plague American politics.