theguardian--2020-12-19--Trump raised $200m from false election claims. What happens to the money now?

The battle is lost .
The supreme court and electoral college have spoken .
Even the Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , so adept at remaking the rules for political advantage , has acknowledged that Donald Trump will not be the next president .
But the money flowing into Trump ’ s political coffers suggests that defeat will not drive the soon-to-be-former president into the political shadows .
Trump has been on a fundraising drive since the election , rapidly bringing in an astonishing $ 200m or more on the back of his false claims that the vote was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails and text messages – as many as 30 a day – pleading for donations to a fighting fund to challenge the result .
But with the election settled , that is not where the money is going .
Most of the cash is directed to Save America , an organisation formed as a leadership political action committee ( Pac ) shortly after the election .
Leadership Pacs were designed to allow individuals to raise money in support of a favoured candidate and Trump can not legally use the proceeds to directly fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as another bid for the presidency in four years .
But Brendan Fischer , a campaign finance specialist at the Campaign Legal Center , said Trump ’ s fundraising was unprecedented and evidence of undimmed political ambition .
“ I can think of no other president who has set up a leadership PAC immediately after losing an election and begun fundraising for it furiously .
This is entirely , entirely unique , ” he said .
“ I think it ’ s basically going to be the vehicle for Trump ’ s post-White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money in a blitz of appeals for donations to what was billed as an “ official election defense fund ” without clear mention of Save America .
An aggressive sales pitch was built around the president ’ s false claims that the election was rigged – even as one legal challenge after another was struck down .
“ We need YOUR HELP to DEFEND the integrity of our Election , ” said one email .
Another email carried the subject line : “ The Recount Results were BOGUS.
” The money flooded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near fighting the outcome of an election that is already settled .
Some was used to pay off Trump ’ s campaign debt , and 25 cents in every dollar goes directly to the Republican party .
The remainder is paid to Save America .
“ We ’ d expect that there ’ s well over $ 100m in the leadership Pac account by this point , ” said Fischer .
“ That is exceptional .
That is a lot of money , far more than any other leadership Pac that I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is an indication that Trump is not planning to quietly retreat from the political stage to write his memoirs .
“ The creation of his leadership Pac is certainly an indication that Trump plans to remain very active in politics , and is aiming to remain a major political player , ” he said .
“ Because leadership Pacs are loosely regulated , he could use the funds not only to keep his campaign staff on the payroll , but also to potentially benefit financially .
He could use the leadership Pac @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay family members a salary .
There ’ s a lot of things you can do with this.
” Jennifer Victor , associate professor of political science at George Mason University , said the smart move would be for Trump to use the money to fund the election of political loyalists to keep Trumpism alive .
“ Is he savvy enough as a political operator to use that money to essentially build a broad coalition in which he is the center and the doler-out of the money that could strengthen his political position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because his political movement so far has been so centered around himself , ” she said .
“ He would have to have an interest in building the Republican party around Trumpism , which has kind of been happening quite naturally over the last number of years .
But to make that a permanent feature of the Republican party he would have to then use the political capital that has built around his name for the benefit of party , which means giving it to other candidates.
” Victor said that created a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hoped to move beyond Trump .
“ He will be not just a past president and candidate , but a candidate who won the second-highest vote total of any American candidate ever , second only to Joe Biden .
So he has this enormous base of followers .
At the same time , he ’ s always defied the democratic norms and the norms of the Republican party , ” she said .
Then there is Trump ’ s stated desire to run for president again in four years .
“ Save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s campaign , but there are a number of ways that it could be used to lay the groundwork for a run for office in 2024 , ” said Fischer .
“ Probably where it ’ s going to be more useful is to finance Trump ’ s campaigning in support of another candidate .
It can potentially pay for rallies in support of another candidate .
It can be used to pay for ads that are run ostensibly independently of the candidate that he ’ s supporting.
” That could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of his own children .
Speculation is already swirling around the possibility of Ivanka Trump running for the US Senate in Florida .
All of which maintains president ’ s political profile and influence in the Republican party , particularly as he has proved adept at turning other people ’ s campaign events into de facto Trump rallies .
What Trump can not use the donations for is to resolve the legal and financial problems he faces when he leaves the White House which may stand in the way of future political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cyrus Vance Jr , is leading a criminal investigation into Trump ’ s business dealings .
New York ’ s state attorney general , Letitia James , is heading a civil probe after the president ’ s former lawyer , Michael Cohen , told Congress Trump inflated the value of his assets to secure bank loans and then reduced them to cut tax .
The investigations recently expanded to examine consulting fees that may have gone to the president ’ s daughter Ivanka .
She responded to news of the inquiry by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses his protection from criminal prosecution when he leaves office .
While he claims to have the power to pardon himself before he departs the White House , any such move would only apply to federal crimes , not charges brought by New York or any other state .
The president is also facing huge debt repayments .
Trump has personally guaranteed about $ 420m in debt owed by his businesses which has to be repaid in the coming years , according to the New York Times .
The bulk of those debts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reuters reported that the bank was trying to sever ties with the president .
The Trump Organization , the president ’ s umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons , owes about $ 340m to Deutsche Bank .
The loans , which are against Trump properties , start coming due in two years .

The battle is lost. The supreme court and electoral college have spoken. Even the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, so adept at remaking the rules for political advantage, has acknowledged that Donald Trump will not be the next president.
But the money flowing into Trump’s political coffers suggests that defeat will not drive the soon-to-be-former president into the political shadows.
Trump has been on a fundraising drive since the election, rapidly bringing in an astonishing $200m or more on the back of his false claims that the vote was rigged.
His campaign bombarded supporters with emails and text messages – as many as 30 a day – pleading for donations to a fighting fund to challenge the result. But with the election settled, that is not where the money is going.
Most of the cash is directed to Save America, an organisation formed as a leadership political action committee (Pac) shortly after the election. Leadership Pacs were designed to allow individuals to raise money in support of a favoured candidate and Trump cannot legally use the proceeds to directly fund a run for office himself, such as another bid for the presidency in four years.
But Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance specialist at the Campaign Legal Center, said Trump’s fundraising was unprecedented and evidence of undimmed political ambition.
“I can think of no other president who has set up a leadership PAC immediately after losing an election and begun fundraising for it furiously. This is entirely, entirely unique,” he said.
“I think it’s basically going to be the vehicle for Trump’s post-White House political operation.”
Trump raised the money in a blitz of appeals for donations to what was billed as an “official election defense fund” without clear mention of Save America. An aggressive sales pitch was built around the president’s false claims that the election was rigged – even as one legal challenge after another was struck down.
“We need YOUR HELP to DEFEND the integrity of our Election,” said one email.
Another email carried the subject line: “The Recount Results were BOGUS.”
The money flooded in but most of it will go nowhere near fighting the outcome of an election that is already settled. Some was used to pay off Trump’s campaign debt, and 25 cents in every dollar goes directly to the Republican party. The remainder is paid to Save America.
“We’d expect that there’s well over $100m in the leadership Pac account by this point,” said Fischer. “That is exceptional. That is a lot of money, far more than any other leadership Pac that I can think of has raised.”
Fischer said that is an indication that Trump is not planning to quietly retreat from the political stage to write his memoirs.
“The creation of his leadership Pac is certainly an indication that Trump plans to remain very active in politics, and is aiming to remain a major political player,” he said.
“Because leadership Pacs are loosely regulated, he could use the funds not only to keep his campaign staff on the payroll, but also to potentially benefit financially. He could use the leadership Pac to pay himself a salary, to pay family members a salary. There’s a lot of things you can do with this.”
Jennifer Victor, associate professor of political science at George Mason University, said the smart move would be for Trump to use the money to fund the election of political loyalists to keep Trumpism alive.
“Is he savvy enough as a political operator to use that money to essentially build a broad coalition in which he is the center and the doler-out of the money that could strengthen his political position? It’s hard to say because his political movement so far has been so centered around himself,” she said.
“He would have to have an interest in building the Republican party around Trumpism, which has kind of been happening quite naturally over the last number of years. But to make that a permanent feature of the Republican party he would have to then use the political capital that has built around his name for the benefit of party, which means giving it to other candidates.”
Victor said that created a headache for the Republican party leadership if it hoped to move beyond Trump.
“He will be not just a past president and candidate, but a candidate who won the second-highest vote total of any American candidate ever, second only to Joe Biden. So he has this enormous base of followers. At the same time, he’s always defied the democratic norms and the norms of the Republican party,” she said.
Then there is Trump’s stated desire to run for president again in four years.
“Save America cannot be used to support Trump’s campaign, but there are a number of ways that it could be used to lay the groundwork for a run for office in 2024,” said Fischer.
“Probably where it’s going to be more useful is to finance Trump’s campaigning in support of another candidate. It can potentially pay for rallies in support of another candidate. It can be used to pay for ads that are run ostensibly independently of the candidate that he’s supporting.”
That could include funding a run for office by one of his own children. Speculation is already swirling around the possibility of Ivanka Trump running for the US Senate in Florida.
All of which maintains president’s political profile and influence in the Republican party, particularly as he has proved adept at turning other people’s campaign events into de facto Trump rallies.
What Trump cannot use the donations for is to resolve the legal and financial problems he faces when he leaves the White House which may stand in the way of future political ambitions.
Manhattan’s district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr, is leading a criminal investigation into Trump’s business dealings. New York’s state attorney general, Letitia James, is heading a civil probe after the president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, told Congress Trump inflated the value of his assets to secure bank loans and then reduced them to cut tax.
The investigations recently expanded to examine consulting fees that may have gone to the president’s daughter Ivanka . She responded to news of the inquiry by calling it politically motivated harassment.
Trump loses his protection from criminal prosecution when he leaves office. While he claims to have the power to pardon himself before he departs the White House, any such move would only apply to federal crimes, not charges brought by New York or any other state.
The president is also facing huge debt repayments. Trump has personally guaranteed about $420m in debt owed by his businesses which has to be repaid in the coming years, according to the New York Times.
The bulk of those debts are with Deutsche Bank. Last month Reuters reported that the bank was trying to sever ties with the president.
The Trump Organization, the president’s umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, owes about $340m to Deutsche Bank. The loans, which are against Trump properties, start coming due in two years.


theguardian--2020-12-19--From A Very Stable Genius to After Trump: 2020 in US politics books

A long time ago , in 1883 , a future president ( Woodrow Wilson , a subject of this year ’ s reckonings ) studied political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore , in a classroom in which was inscribed the slogan “ History is Past Politics , Politics is Present History ” , attributed to Sir John Seeley , a Cambridge professor .
That was before the era of the made-for-campaign book .
Politics books in this election year fell into three broad categories .
The ordinary , ranging from “ meeting-and-tells ” to campaign biographies that outlived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which made tentative starts at history or contained some important revelations .
And the significant , those few whose value should live past this year because they actually changed the narrative – or are simply good or important reads .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , the books also fell in descending categories numerically .
Carlos Lozada of the Washington Post read 150 books on Donald Trump and the Trump era for his own book , What Were We Thinking .
Virtually all readers , however , will be content with simply a “ non-zero ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer .
First , the ephemera and the expected offerings of any election year .
Scandals in and out of government ; tales of the extended Trump family ; attempts at self-justification ; books , some entertaining , by correspondents ; how-to guides to politics meant to be read and applied before November .
The permutations and penumbras of the 2016 campaign continued to produce new books : Peter Strozk ’ s Compromised is the story of the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign from one FBI agent ’ s perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts inconvenient to him .
Rick Gates ’ Wicked Game contains some new inside scoop , but the real stuff presumably went to the Mueller investigation of which Strzok was briefly a part .
Donald Trump Jr ’ s Liberal Privilege had a double mission : to encourage votes for the father in 2020 and perhaps for the son in 2024 .
American Crisis , New York governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s early book on the coronavirus outbreak , highlighted his programmatic vision rather than soaring prose , a choice appropriate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rages on .
Second come those books that made one sit up a bit to pay attention : a new insight , important facts revealed ; “ worth a detour ” , in the language of the Michelin guides .
Psychologist and presidential niece Mary Trump ’ s Too Much and Never Enough explained the pain of the Trump family over two generations and how that pain has influenced our national life for ill. David Frum was among the first to predict Trump ’ s authoritarian dangers .
This year , Trumpocalpyse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the attacks on the rule of law and “ white ethnic chauvinism ” as hallmarks of Trumpism , whether its supporters are poor or elite .
Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker , Pulitzer-winning Post reporters , chronicled Trump more deeply and successfully than most in A Very Stable Genius .
Trump ’ s anger at the book showed they hit their target .
Stuart Stevens ’ It Was All a Lie takes Republican history back a few decades in a punchy mea culpa whose themes will be important in the debate over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats , a rare good work by a politician , Stacey Abrams ’ Our Time Is Now , as well as her triumph in political organizing in Georgia , marks her as an important force .
For quality in financial journalism and the importance of its topic , not least to current and future investigations of Trump and the Trump Organization , Dark Towers by David Enrich on Deutsche Bank offers as full an analysis of the bank and its relation to Trump as is likely to be public absent a further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weissmann , a senior prosecutor with the Mueller investigation , wrote Where Law Ends , a strongly-written account in which he regrets his boss not having pursued further , notably in not issuing a subpoena to Trump and then in not making a formal determination as to whether the president would be charged with obstruction of justice .
Weissmann ’ s frustration is understandable , but readers may judge for themselves how fair or not he is to the pressures and formal restrictions on Mueller himself .
There is a subcategory here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HR McMaster ’ s Battlegrounds attempts to explain his working theories ( “ strategic empathy ” ) modified for current realities and arguing against American retrenchment and isolation .
In The Room Where It Happened , former national security adviser John Bolton told of Trump begging for China ’ s assistance and wrote that Trump was not “ fit for office ” – the tale would have been better told to the House impeachment committee .
David Rohde ’ s In Deep demolished the theory of the “ deep state ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry Kissinger ’ s life and work .
Traitor , by David Rothkopf , sought to chronicle the Trump administration while seeking to reverse its effects and giving a history of American traitors .
Finally , the significant – those few books that contributed importantly to the year ’ s narrative , or that deserve a reading next year .
There was another Bob Woodward book , Rage – with tapes .
The big news was that Trump was aware of the dangers of Covid-19 yet chose not to publicize them and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence , thought Putin had something on Trump .
Woodward got the stories others chased .
Michael Schmidt ’ s Donald Trump v the United States is another serious book , with a strong argument of how deeply the attacks on the rule of law by the Trump administration , notably by Trump himself , threaten democracy .
Schmidt ’ s recounting of efforts to prosecute Hillary Clinton and James Comey are sobering , and his revelations on how the Mueller investigation was narrowed to focus on criminality rather than Russian influence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Politics meets history in a few volumes , notably Thomas Frank ’ s plea against populism , The People , No , contrasting Trump unfavorably with FDR .
Peter Baker and Susan Glasser teamed for a masterpiece biography of former secretary of state James Baker , The Man Who Ran Washington , that reminds us what ( and whom ) the Republican party used to call leadership .
It ’ s a serious book that recalls Baker , Gerald Ford ’ s campaign manager in 1976 , did not challenge the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also shows the truth in Seeley ’ s aphorism about the relation of politics and history , with many insights into one of the best recent practitioners of politics , fondly remembered for his statesmanship at the end of the cold war .
Molly Ball ’ s well-researched and enjoyable biography of Nancy Pelosi makes sense of the most powerful woman in American history .
Thomas Rid ’ s Active Measures , on disinformation and political warfare – Clausewitz for the cyber era – finds fresh urgency in light of recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Two books merit a final mention .
As the Trump administration comes to a close , Ruth Ben-Ghiat analysed Trump ’ s actions and personality from the comparative perspective of fascist leaders since Mussolini and chillingly noted not only the actions that pointed to authoritarianism , but how deep the danger of going down that path .
Strongmen is a vital book and a warning .
Ben-Ghiat sees in Trump a “ drive to control and exploit everyone and everything for personal gain .
The men , women and children he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insofar as they fight his enemies and adulate him publicly .
Propaganda lets him monopolize the nation ’ s attention , and virility comes into play as he poses as the ideal take-charge man.
” Dehumanizing rhetoric and actions against immigrants ( and even members of Congress ) and appointments of people whose motivation was loyalty rather than law has real cost to a political system whose fragility at points is evident .
It takes both individual action and courageous will to preserve democracy .
On a happier note , Bob Bauer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal , sometimes quite technical roadmap to reform of many norms of government that have been eroded .
Some are obvious , others will prove controversial , but let this urgent discussion begin with Congress and the Biden administration .
Of which , this year also saw the publication of A Promised Land , the first volume of memoirs from Barack Obama , whom the new president served as vice-president .
Well-written despite being policy heavy , at times deeply moving , at others not as detailed as many readers might wish ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflective both about the nature of power and about himself .
More , his book serves once again to remind the world of the contrast between him and his successor .
He is rightly proud to have written it – and to have written it by hand , to encourage his own deep thoughts about his presidency and the country he was honored , and sometimes troubled , to lead .
To learn more about the president to come , Evan Osnos ’ Joe Biden : American Dreamer is an excellent place to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragedies and conviviality are here in equal measure .
Osnos ends with a Biden speech about dispelling America ’ s “ season of darkness ” – a fervent hope for the new year ahead .

A long time ago, in 1883, a future president (Woodrow Wilson, a subject of this year’s reckonings) studied political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, in a classroom in which was inscribed the slogan “History is Past Politics, Politics is Present History”, attributed to Sir John Seeley, a Cambridge professor.
That was before the era of the made-for-campaign book.
Politics books in this election year fell into three broad categories. The ordinary, ranging from “meeting-and-tells” to campaign biographies that outlived their relevance. The interesting, those which made tentative starts at history or contained some important revelations. And the significant, those few whose value should live past this year because they actually changed the narrative – or are simply good or important reads.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the books also fell in descending categories numerically. Carlos Lozada of the Washington Post read 150 books on Donald Trump and the Trump era for his own book, What Were We Thinking. Virtually all readers, however, will be content with simply a “non-zero” number, to quote a Trump campaign lawyer.
First, the ephemera and the expected offerings of any election year. Scandals in and out of government; tales of the extended Trump family; attempts at self-justification; books, some entertaining, by correspondents; how-to guides to politics meant to be read and applied before November.
The permutations and penumbras of the 2016 campaign continued to produce new books: Peter Strzok’s Compromised is the story of the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign from one FBI agent’s perspective, strong stuff and persuasive though omitting facts inconvenient to him. Rick Gates’ Wicked Game contains some new inside scoop, but the real stuff presumably went to the Mueller investigation of which Strzok was briefly a part. Donald Trump Jr’s Liberal Privilege had a double mission: to encourage votes for the father in 2020 and perhaps for the son in 2024. American Crisis, New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s early book on the coronavirus outbreak, highlighted his programmatic vision rather than soaring prose, a choice appropriate for the year but quickly forgotten as the pandemic rages on.
Second come those books that made one sit up a bit to pay attention: a new insight, important facts revealed; “worth a detour”, in the language of the Michelin guides. Psychologist and presidential niece Mary Trump’s Too Much and Never Enough explained the pain of the Trump family over two generations and how that pain has influenced our national life for ill. David Frum was among the first to predict Trump’s authoritarian dangers. This year, Trumpocalpyse, well-written and insightful as always, focused on the attacks on the rule of law and “white ethnic chauvinism” as hallmarks of Trumpism, whether its supporters are poor or elite. Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, Pulitzer-winning Post reporters, chronicled Trump more deeply and successfully than most in A Very Stable Genius. Trump’s anger at the book showed they hit their target.
Stuart Stevens’ It Was All a Lie takes Republican history back a few decades in a punchy mea culpa whose themes will be important in the debate over the future of the GOP. Among the Democrats, a rare good work by a politician, Stacey Abrams’ Our Time Is Now, as well as her triumph in political organizing in Georgia, marks her as an important force.
For quality in financial journalism and the importance of its topic, not least to current and future investigations of Trump and the Trump Organization, Dark Towers by David Enrich on Deutsche Bank offers as full an analysis of the bank and its relation to Trump as is likely to be public absent a further court case in New York.
Andrew Weissmann, a senior prosecutor with the Mueller investigation, wrote Where Law Ends, a strongly-written account in which he regrets his boss not having pursued further, notably in not issuing a subpoena to Trump and then in not making a formal determination as to whether the president would be charged with obstruction of justice. Weissmann’s frustration is understandable, but readers may judge for themselves how fair or not he is to the pressures and formal restrictions on Mueller himself.
Nancy Pelosi was the subject of a well-researched life, by Molly Ball. Photograph: Erin Scott/Reuters
There is a subcategory here, of books on foreign and security policy. HR McMaster’s Battlegrounds attempts to explain his working theories (“strategic empathy”) modified for current realities and arguing against American retrenchment and isolation. In The Room Where It Happened, former national security adviser John Bolton told of Trump begging for China’s assistance and wrote that Trump was not “fit for office” – the tale would have been better told to the House impeachment committee. David Rohde’s In Deep demolished the theory of the “deep state”. Barry Gewen delivered a new biography of Henry Kissinger’s life and work. Traitor, by David Rothkopf, sought to chronicle the Trump administration while seeking to reverse its effects and giving a history of American traitors.
Finally, the significant – those few books that contributed importantly to the year’s narrative, or that deserve a reading next year.
There was another Bob Woodward book, Rage – with tapes. The big news was that Trump was aware of the dangers of Covid-19 yet chose not to publicize them and that Dan Coats, then director of national intelligence, thought Putin had something on Trump. Woodward got the stories others chased. Michael Schmidt’s Donald Trump v the United States is another serious book, with a strong argument of how deeply the attacks on the rule of law by the Trump administration, notably by Trump himself, threaten democracy. Schmidt’s recounting of efforts to prosecute Hillary Clinton and James Comey are sobering, and his revelations on how the Mueller investigation was narrowed to focus on criminality rather than Russian influence in 2016 form a useful corrective to Weissmann.
Politics meets history in a few volumes, notably Thomas Frank’s plea against populism, The People, No, contrasting Trump unfavorably with FDR. Peter Baker and Susan Glasser teamed for a masterpiece biography of former secretary of state James Baker, The Man Who Ran Washington, that reminds us what (and whom) the Republican party used to call leadership. It’s a serious book that recalls Baker, Gerald Ford’s campaign manager in 1976, did not challenge the election result because Ford lost the popular vote. It also shows the truth in Seeley’s aphorism about the relation of politics and history, with many insights into one of the best recent practitioners of politics, fondly remembered for his statesmanship at the end of the cold war.
Molly Ball’s well-researched and enjoyable biography of Nancy Pelosi makes sense of the most powerful woman in American history. Thomas Rid’s Active Measures, on disinformation and political warfare – Clausewitz for the cyber era – finds fresh urgency in light of recent revelations about major cyberattacks on the US government.
Two books merit a final mention. As the Trump administration comes to a close, Ruth Ben-Ghiat analysed Trump’s actions and personality from the comparative perspective of fascist leaders since Mussolini and chillingly noted not only the actions that pointed to authoritarianism, but how deep the danger of going down that path.
Strongmen is a vital book and a warning. Ben-Ghiat sees in Trump a “drive to control and exploit everyone and everything for personal gain. The men, women and children he governs have value in his eyes only insofar as they fight his enemies and adulate him publicly. Propaganda lets him monopolize the nation’s attention, and virility comes into play as he poses as the ideal take-charge man.” Dehumanizing rhetoric and actions against immigrants (and even members of Congress) and appointments of people whose motivation was loyalty rather than law has real cost to a political system whose fragility at points is evident. It takes both individual action and courageous will to preserve democracy.
Joe Biden listens to Barack Obama at the White House in December 2012. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images
On a happier note, Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith in After Trump offer a legal, sometimes quite technical roadmap to reform of many norms of government that have been eroded. Some are obvious, others will prove controversial, but let this urgent discussion begin with Congress and the Biden administration.
Of which, this year also saw the publication of A Promised Land, the first volume of memoirs from Barack Obama, whom the new president served as vice-president. Well-written despite being policy heavy, at times deeply moving, at others not as detailed as many readers might wish (despite its length), Obama is reflective both about the nature of power and about himself. More, his book serves once again to remind the world of the contrast between him and his successor. He is rightly proud to have written it – and to have written it by hand, to encourage his own deep thoughts about his presidency and the country he was honored, and sometimes troubled, to lead.
To learn more about the president to come, Evan Osnos’ Joe Biden: American Dreamer is an excellent place to start: his political skills, life tragedies and conviviality are here in equal measure. Osnos ends with a Biden speech about dispelling America’s “season of darkness” – a fervent hope for the new year ahead.


theguardian--2020-12-19--What we know – and still don’t – about the worst-ever US government cyber attack

Nearly a week after the US government announced that multiple federal agencies had been targeted by a sweeping cyber attack , the full scope and consequences of the suspected Russian hack remain unknown .
Key federal agencies , from the Department of Homeland Security to the agency that oversees America ’ s nuclear weapons arsenal , were reportedly targeted , as were powerful tech and security companies , including Microsoft .
Investigators are still trying to determine what information the hackers may have stolen , and what they could do with it .
Donald Trump has still said nothing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posed a “ grave risk ” to every level of government .
Joe Biden has promised a tougher response to cyber attacks but offered no specifics .
Members of Congress are demanding more information about what happened , even as officials scrambling for answers call the attack “ significant and ongoing ” .
Here ’ s a look at what we know , and what we still don ’ t , about the worst-ever cyber attack on US federal agencies .
The hack began as early as March , when malicious code was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Orion , made by the company SolarWinds , which provides network-monitoring and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organizations around the world , including most Fortune 500 companies and government agencies in North America , Europe , Asia and the Middle East .
That malware in the updates gave elite hackers remote access to an organization ’ s networks so they could steal information .
The apparent months-long timeline gave the hackers ample opportunity to extract information from many targets , including monitoring email and other internal communications .
Microsoft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarkable for its scope , sophistication and impact ” .
Who has been affected so far ?
At least six US government departments , including the energy , commerce , treasury and state departments , are reported to have been breached .
The National Nuclear Security Administration ’ s networks were also breached , Politico reported on Thursday .
Dozens of security and other technology firms , as well as non-governmental organizations , were also affected , Microsoft said in a statement Thursday .
While most of those affected by the attack were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had identified additional victims in Canada , Mexico , Belgium , Spain , the United Kingdom , Israel and the United Arab Emirates .
“ It ’ s certain that the number and location of victims will keep growing , ” Microsoft added .
Who is responsible for the attack ?
While the US government has not yet officially named who is responsible for the attack , US officials have told media outlets they believe Russia is the culprit , specifically SVR , Russia ’ s foreign intelligence outfit .
Andrei Soldatov , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies and the author of The Red Web , told the Guardian he believes the hack was more likely a joint effort of Russia ’ s SVR and FSB , the domestic spy agency Putin once headed .
Russia has denied involvement : “ One shouldn ’ t unfoundedly blame the Russians for everything , ” a Kremlin spokesman said on Monday .
The infiltration tactic involved in the current hack , known as the “ supply-chain ” method , recalled the technique Russian military hackers used in 2016 to infect companies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NotPetya virus – the most damaging cyber-attack to date .
What information has been stolen , and how is it being used ?
“ This hack was so big in scope that even our cybersecurity experts don ’ t have a real sense yet in the terms of the breadth of the intrusion itself , ” Stephen Lynch , the head of the House of Representatives ’ oversight and reform committee , said after attending a classified briefing Friday .
Thomas Rid , a Johns Hopkins cyberconflict expert , told the Associated Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had harvested such a vast quantity of data that “ they themselves most likely don ’ t know yet ” what useful information they ’ ve stolen .
What can be done to fix the networks that have been compromised ?
That ’ s also unclear , and potentially very difficult .
“ Removing this threat actor from compromised environments will be highly complex and challenging for organizations , ” said a statement from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( Cisa ) on Thursday .
One of Trump ’ s former homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already said publicly that a real fix may take years , and be both costly and challenging .
“ It will take years to know for certain which networks the Russians control and which ones they just occupy , ” Bossert wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday .
“ The logical conclusion is that we must act as if the Russian government has control of all the networks it has penetrated.
” “ A ‘ do-over ’ is mandatory and entire new networks need to be built – and isolated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As of Friday afternoon , the US president had still said nothing to address the attack .
The Republican senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney has criticized Trump ’ s silence as unacceptable , particularly in response to an attack he said was “ like Russian bombers have been repeatedly flying undetected over our entire country ” .
“ Not to have the White House aggressively speaking out and protesting and taking punitive action is really , really quite extraordinary , ” Romney said .
So far , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the president-elect .
“ We need to disrupt and deter our adversaries from undertaking significant cyberattacks in the first place , ” Biden said .
“ We will do that by , among other things , imposing substantial costs on those responsible for such malicious attacks , including in coordination with our allies and partners.
” “ There ’ s a lot we don ’ t yet know , but what we do know is a matter of great concern , ” Biden said .
Could this attack have been prevented or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done is had a coherent approach and not been at odds with each other , ” said Fiona Hill , a Russia expert and former Trump National Security Council member , to PBS NewsHour this week , criticizing conflict and dysfunction within the Trump administration and between the US and its allies on Russia-related issues .
If “ we don ’ t have the president on one page and everybody else on another , and we ’ re working together with our allies to push back on this , that would have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other cybersecurity experts said the federal government could also do more to simply keep up to date on cybersecurity issues , and said the Trump administration had failed on this front , including by eliminating the positions of White House cybersecurity coordinator and state department cybersecurity policy chief .
“ It ’ s been a frustrating time , the last four years .
I mean , nothing has happened seriously at all in cybersecurity , ” said Brandon Valeriano , a Marine Corps University scholar and adviser to a US cyber defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What options does the US have to respond politically to this kind of attack ?
Some experts are arguing that the US government needs to do more to punish Russia for its apparent interference .
The federal government could impose formal sanctions on Russia , as when the Obama administration expelled Russian diplomats in retaliation for Kremlin military hackers ’ meddling in Donald Trump ’ s favor in the 2016 election .
Or the US could fight back more covertly by , for instance , making public details of Putin ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guardian ’ s Luke Harding pointed out , cyber attacks are “ cheap , deniable , and psychologically effective ” , and Biden ’ s options for responding to Russia ’ s aggression are limited .
“ The answer eluded Barack Obama , who tried unsuccessfully to reset relations with Putin .
The person who led this doomed mission was the then secretary of state , Hillary Clinton , herself a Russian hacking victim in 2016 , ” Harding wrote .
What are other potential consequences of the hack ?
SolarWinds may face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities affected by the breach .
The company filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday detailing the hack .
In it , the company said total revenue from affected products was about $ 343m , or roughly 45 % of the firm ’ s total revenue .
SolarWinds ’ stock price has fallen 25 % since news of the breach first broke .
Moody ’ s Investors Service said Wednesday it was looking to downgrade its rating for the company , citing the “ potential for reputational damage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in business performance and high remediation and legal costs ” .

Nearly a week after the US government announced that multiple federal agencies had been targeted by a sweeping cyber-attack, the full scope and consequences of the suspected Russian hack remain unknown.
Key federal agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security to the agency that oversees America’s nuclear weapons arsenal, were reportedly targeted, as were powerful tech and security companies including Microsoft. Investigators are still trying to determine what information the hackers may have stolen, and what they could do with it.
After days of silence, Donald Trump on Saturday dismissed the hack, which federal officials said posed a “grave risk” to every level of government, and said it was “well under control”. Joe Biden has promised a tougher response to cyber-attacks but offered no specifics. Members of Congress are demanding more information about what happened, even as officials scrambling for answers call the attack “significant and ongoing”.
Here’s a look at what we know, and what we still don’t, about the worst-ever cyber-attack on US federal agencies.
What happened?
The hack began as early as March, when malicious code was snuck into updates to a popular software called Orion, made by the company SolarWinds, which provides network-monitoring and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organizations around the world, including most Fortune 500 companies and government agencies in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
That malware gave elite hackers remote access to an organization’s networks so they could steal information. The apparent months-long timeline gave the hackers ample opportunity to extract information from targets including monitoring email and other internal communications.
Microsoft called it “an attack that is remarkable for its scope, sophistication and impact”.
Who has been affected?
At least six US government departments, including energy, commerce, treasury and state, are reported to have been breached. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s networks were also breached, Politico reported on Thursday.
Dozens of security and other technology firms, as well as non-governmental organizations, were also affected, Microsoft said on Thursday. While most affected by the attack were in the US, Microsoft said it had identified victims in Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom, Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
“It’s certain that the number and location of victims will keep growing,” Microsoft added.
The US Department of Treasury is among the departments said to have been breached in the hack. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/EPA
Who is responsible for the attack?
On Friday evening, secretary of state Mike Pompeo became the first Trump official to publicly confirm the attack was linked to Russia, telling a conservative radio host: “I think it’s the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity.”
Previously, US officials speaking on condition of anonymity, as well as prominent cybersecurity experts, told media outlets they believed Russia was the culprit, specifically SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence outfit.
We must act as if the Russian government has control of all the networks it has penetrated Thomas Bossert, writing in the New York Times
Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russia’s spy agencies and the author of The Red Web, told the Guardian he believes the hack was more likely a joint effort of Russia’s SVR and FSB, the domestic spy agency Vladimir Putin once led.
Russia has denied involvement: “One shouldn’t unfoundedly blame the Russians for everything,” a Kremlin spokesman said.
The infiltration tactic involved in the current hack, known as the “supply chain” method, recalled the technique Russian military hackers used in 2016 to infect companies that do business in Ukraine with the hard-drive-wiping NotPetya virus – the most damaging cyber-attack to date.
What information has been stolen, and how is it being used?
That remains unclear.
“This hack was so big in scope that even our cybersecurity experts don’t have a real sense yet in the terms of the breadth of the intrusion itself,” Stephen Lynch, head of the House of Representatives oversight committee, said after attending a classified briefing on Friday.
Thomas Rid, a Johns Hopkins cyber-conflict expert, told the Associated Press it was likely the hackers had harvested such a vast quantity of data that “they themselves most likely don’t know yet” what useful information they’ve stolen.
What can be done to fix the networks that have been compromised?
That’s also unclear, and potentially very difficult.
“Removing this threat actor from compromised environments will be highly complex and challenging for organizations,” said a statement from the cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) on Thursday.
One of Trump’s former homeland security advisers, Thomas Bossert, has said publicly that a real fix may take years, and be both costly and challenging.
“It will take years to know for certain which networks the Russians control and which ones they just occupy,” Bossert wrote in the New York Times. “The logical conclusion is that we must act as if the Russian government has control of all the networks it has penetrated.
“A ‘do-over’ is mandatory and entire new networks need to be built – and isolated from compromised networks.”
Donald Trump was slow to speak out on the attack, which has been attributed to Russia. Photograph: Al Drago/Getty Images
How has Trump responded?
For most of the week, the president said nothing. On Saturday morning, he sent a tweet dismissing the seriousness of the attack and contradicting his own officials’ statements about Russia’s responsibility.
Officials at the White House had been prepared to put out a statement on Friday afternoon, accusing Russia of being “the main actor”, but were told at the last minute to stand down, the AP reported, citing a US official familiar with the conversations.
The Republican senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Trump’s long silence as unacceptable in response to an attack he said was “like Russian bombers have been repeatedly flying undetected over our entire country”.
“Not to have the White House aggressively speaking out and protesting and taking punitive action is really, really quite extraordinary,” Romney said.
Trump tweeted on Saturday that he was skeptical of holding Russia responsible, a statement made just hours after his secretary of state said publicly the attack was “clearly” linked to Russia.
“Russia, Russia, Russia is the priority chant when anything happens,” Trump tweeted, questioning, without any evidence, whether China might have been behind the attack instead.
“Another day, another scandalous betrayal of our national security by this president,” Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House intelligence committee and led impeachment proceedings against Trump, said in response.
How has Biden responded?
So far, there’s been tough talk but no clear plan from the president-elect.
“We need to disrupt and deter our adversaries from undertaking significant cyber-attacks in the first place,” Biden said. “We will do that by, among other things, imposing substantial costs on those responsible for such malicious attacks, including in coordination with our allies and partners.
“There’s a lot we don’t yet know, but what we do know is a matter of great concern.”
Could this attack have been prevented or deterred?
“What we could have done is had a coherent approach and not been at odds with each other,” said Fiona Hill, a Russia expert and former National Security Council member, to PBS NewsHour, criticizing conflict and dysfunction within the Trump administration and between the US and allies on Russia-related issues.
That dysfunction was on new display on Saturday, as Trump publicly disputed his own secretary of state’s explanation.
If “we don’t have the president on one page and everybody else on another, and we’re working together with our allies to push back on this, that would have a serious deterrent effect”, Hill said.
Other cybersecurity experts said the federal government could also do more to simply keep up to date on cybersecurity issues, and said the Trump administration had failed on this front, including by eliminating the positions of White House cybersecurity coordinator and state department cybersecurity policy chief.
“It’s been a frustrating time, the last four years. I mean, nothing has happened seriously at all in cybersecurity,” Brandon Valeriano, a Marine Corps University scholar and adviser to a US cyber-defense commission, to the AP.
Fiona Hill, a government expert on Russia, criticized Trump administration dysfunction. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA
What options does the US have to respond politically?
Some experts are arguing the US needs to do more to punish Russia. The federal government could impose formal sanctions, as when the Obama administration expelled diplomats in retaliation for Kremlin military hackers’ meddling in Trump’s favor in the 2016 election. Or the US could fight back more covertly by, for instance, making public details of Putin’s financial dealings.
But as the Guardian’s Luke Harding pointed out, cyber-attacks are “cheap, deniable, and psychologically effective”, and Biden’s options for responding are limited.
“The answer eluded Barack Obama, who tried unsuccessfully to reset relations with Putin,” Harding wrote. “The person who led this doomed mission was the then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, herself a Russian hacking victim in 2016.”
The state department said on Saturday the US was halting work at consulates in Vladivostock and Yekaterinburg, citing safety and security issues at facilities where operations had been curtailed because of Covid-19. The decision did not affect Russian consulates in the US, the department said, but the closures will leave the embassy in Moscow as the last US diplomatic mission in Russia.
What are other potential consequences of the hack?
SolarWinds may face legal action from customers and government entities affected by the breach. The company filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday, detailing the hack.
The company said total revenue from affected products was about $343m, or roughly 45% of its total revenue. SolarWinds’ stock price has fallen 25% since news of the breach first broke.
Moody’s Investors Service said on Wednesday it was looking to downgrade its rating for the company, citing the “potential for reputational damage, material loss of customers, a slowdown in business performance and high remediation and legal costs”.
The Associated Press contributed reporting


theguardian--2020-12-19--Progressives are a minority in America. To win, they need to compromise | Michael Lind

“ If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans , we shall be utterly ruined , ” lamented King Pyrrhus of Epirus , whose costly triumph in 279 BC inspired the phrase “ Pyrrhic victory ” .
In 2020 , the Democratic party learned what King Pyrrhus was talking about .
They recaptured the White House and narrowly held on to the House of Representatives .
And if the Democrats win both Senate runoffs in Georgia , they may yet capture the Senate .
But Republicans increased their share of the House , making it easier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they control a majority of state legislatures whose redistricting plans for the US Congress can help the Republican party .
Perhaps the greatest blow has been to the progressive interpretation of American politics .
Most progressives have understood Trumpism as the last gasp of a dwindling , reactionary white male population .
The future of the Democrats , it was said , lay with women and minorities .
And yet in 2020 white men shifted more toward Biden than white women did .
Black and brown Americans still voted mostly for Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans among black and Hispanic voters and all of the Republicans who took contested seats from the Democrats were minority group members or women .
The mystery is not why the progressive wave that was supposed to establish a new era of progressive politics did not materialize .
The mystery is why anybody believed that there would be a progressive wave .
After all , progressives – defined as voters who are both socially and economically liberal – are a minority of the American electorate .
According to Gallup in July 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves as liberal , compared with conservative ( 34 % ) or moderate ( 40 % ) .
Not only are progressives a minority of American voters , they are also a minority of Democratic voters .
According to Pew , in 2020 only 47 % of Democrats described themselves as “ liberal ” or “ very liberal ” .
The majority of Democrats are “ moderate ” ( 45 % ) or “ conservative ” ( 14 % ) .
Voters of color are mostly Democratic , but that does not mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary proved .
Only 28 % of black Americans and 30 % of Hispanic Americans identify themselves as liberal .
In our two-party system , consistent progressives can be part of an electoral majority only if at least half of their Democratic coalition is less progressive .
What a winning coalition would look like depends on which issues unite the progressives and non-progressives .
There are only two choices .
The Democrats can be an economically liberal party , with socially liberal and socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a socially liberal party , with economically liberal and economically conservative wings .
The New Deal/Great Society coalition that transformed the US in the mid-20th century , between the presidencies of Franklin D Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson , was an example of the first kind of coalition .
Most New Deal/Great Society Democrats supported economic programs that made life better for the working-class majority , from social security in the 1930s and Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s to the minimum wage and pro-labor laws .
But even outside of the Democratic south @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society and a backward economy , the Democratic party was not a socially liberal party .
Northern trade union members were often Catholic , with traditional views of sex and marriage .
The midwestern agrarian wing of the New Deal often combined populist support for farm families with religious fundamentalism , while northern progressive Democrats tended to be influenced by Social Gospel Protestantism .
Asked about his political philosophy , Franklin Roosevelt responded : “ I am a Christian and a Democrat.
” Today ’ s Democratic party is the opposite of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation , Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have transformed the Democrats into a socially liberal party , with economically liberal and economically conservative wings .
Catholic and Protestant opponents of abortion have been made unwelcome in the party , and more recently Democrats have made support for gay marriage and gender fluidity litmus tests .
But white , affluent college-educated Democrats tend to be less religious and more socially liberal than African American and Hispanic Democrats , giving Republicans the opportunity to pry away some Democratic voters of color with appeals to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test has allowed the Democrats to pick up some moderate Republicans and libertarians who are alienated by the Republican religious right .
Biden won in part because most voters who supported the Libertarian party in 2016 appear to have voted for the Democratic presidential ticket in 2020 .
But attracting small-government free marketeers to the Democrats comes with a price .
Republicans and libertarians who convert to the Democratic party tend to combine their liberalism on social issues like contraception , abortion and gay rights with hostility to higher taxes and more government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing of the Democratic party at the expense of the progressive wing .
The Clinton-Biden strategy of attracting more affluent white voters to the Democrats by stressing social liberalism rather than economic liberalism has already converted the party into something FDR and LBJ would not recognize .
Of the 100 counties with the highest median incomes in the presidential election of 1980 , the Democrats won only nine , with 91 going to the Republicans .
In 2020 , Biden won 57 to 43 for Trump .
In 2018 , the Democrats won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all 10 of the 10 wealthiest congressional districts , and 41 of 50 of the wealthiest .
These affluent voters prefer Democratic policies on abortion , gay rights and climate change – but only as long as they do not have to pay higher taxes .
Back in 2015 , Hillary Clinton promised that , if she were elected president , there would be no tax increases on households making less than $ 250,000 .
Biden went further this year , promising that taxes would not go up on households that make less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is impossible to fund the Nordic-style welfare state of which American progressives dream without raising taxes on the merely affluent as well as the super-rich , the Democratic party ’ s pandering to the affluent on taxes means that there will not be a Green New Deal , a major expansion of social insurance and social programs , or massive public investment in infrastructure .
To appease the Democratic party ’ s new high-income voters and donors , the last two Democratic presidents , Barack Obama and Bill Clinton , abandoned their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward austerity and deficit reduction .
It remains to be seen whether Biden will do the same .
Progressive Democrats have a choice .
They can continue to be junior partners in a whiter and more gentrified Democratic party that nods toward racial justice and environmentalism and sexual freedom , but says no to a new New Deal .
Or they can try to rebuild something like the New Deal coalition and win back sociallymoderate and conservative voters – some of them voters of color – who favor expanding social security and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action and abortion and decriminalizing illegal immigration .
In either case , progressives must accept that they are only a quarter of the US population and can not hope to win or exercise power without teaming up with people who reject many progressive views .
• None Michael Lind is a professor at the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs and author of The New Class War : Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite

“If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined,” lamented King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose costly triumph in 279 BC inspired the phrase “Pyrrhic victory”. In 2020, the Democratic party learned what King Pyrrhus was talking about. They recaptured the White House and narrowly held on to the House of Representatives. And if the Democrats win both Senate runoffs in Georgia, they may yet capture the Senate. But Republicans increased their share of the House, making it easier for them to recapture it in 2022, and they control a majority of state legislatures whose redistricting plans for the US Congress can help the Republican party.
Perhaps the greatest blow has been to the progressive interpretation of American politics. Most progressives have understood Trumpism as the last gasp of a dwindling, reactionary white male population. The future of the Democrats, it was said, lay with women and minorities. And yet in 2020, white men shifted more toward Biden than white women did. Black and brown Americans still voted mostly for Democrats, but there were significant shifts toward the Republicans among black and Hispanic voters, and all of the Republicans who took contested seats from the Democrats were minority group members or women.
What a winning coalition would look like depends on which issues unite the progressives and non-progressives
The mystery is not why the progressive wave that was supposed to establish a new era of progressive politics did not materialize. The mystery is why anybody believed that there would be a progressive wave. After all, progressives – defined as voters who are both socially and economically liberal – are a minority of the American electorate. According to Gallup in July 2020, only 26% of Americans identify themselves as liberal, compared with conservative (34%) or moderate (40%).
Not only are progressives a minority of American voters, they are also a minority of Democratic voters. According to Pew, in 2020 only 47% of Democrats described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal”. The majority of Democrats are “moderate” (45%) or “conservative” (14%).
Voters of color are mostly Democratic, but that does not mean they are leftwing, as black support for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary proved. Only 28% of black Americans and 30% of Hispanic Americans identify themselves as liberal.
In our two-party system, consistent progressives can be part of an electoral majority only if at least half of their Democratic coalition is less progressive. What a winning coalition would look like depends on which issues unite the progressives and non-progressives. There are only two choices. The Democrats can be an economically liberal party, with socially liberal and socially conservative wings, or they can be a socially liberal party, with economically liberal and economically conservative wings.
The New Deal/Great Society coalition that transformed the US in the mid-20th century, between the presidencies of Franklin D Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, was an example of the first kind of coalition. Most New Deal/Great Society Democrats supported economic programs that made life better for the working-class majority, from social security in the 1930s and Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s to the minimum wage and pro-labor laws.
But even outside of the Democratic south, an anomalous region with an apartheid society and a backward economy, the Democratic party was not a socially liberal party. Northern trade union members were often Catholic, with traditional views of sex and marriage. The midwestern agrarian wing of the New Deal often combined populist support for farm families with religious fundamentalism, while northern progressive Democrats tended to be influenced by Social Gospel Protestantism. Asked about his political philosophy, Franklin Roosevelt responded: “I am a Christian and a Democrat.”
Today’s Democratic party is the opposite of the New Deal coalition. In the past generation, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have transformed the Democrats into a socially liberal party, with economically liberal and economically conservative wings. Catholic and Protestant opponents of abortion have been made unwelcome in the party, and more recently Democrats have made support for gay marriage and gender fluidity litmus tests. But white, affluent college-educated Democrats tend to be less religious and more socially liberal than African American and Hispanic Democrats, giving Republicans the opportunity to pry away some Democratic voters of color with appeals to their values.
Making social liberalism a litmus test has allowed the Democrats to pick up some moderate Republicans and libertarians who are alienated by the Republican religious right. Biden won in part because most voters who supported the Libertarian party in 2016 appear to have voted for the Democratic presidential ticket in 2020. But attracting small-government free marketeers to the Democrats comes with a price. Republicans and libertarians who convert to the Democratic party tend to combine their liberalism on social issues like contraception, abortion and gay rights with hostility to higher taxes and more government spending. These converts reinforce the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party at the expense of the progressive wing.
The Clinton-Biden strategy of attracting more affluent white voters to the Democrats by stressing social liberalism rather than economic liberalism has already converted the party into something FDR and LBJ would not recognize. Of the 100 counties with the highest median incomes in the presidential election of 1980, the Democrats won only nine, with 91 going to the Republicans. In 2020, Biden won 57 to 43 for Trump. In 2018, the Democrats won back the House of Representatives by winning all 10 of the 10 wealthiest congressional districts, and 41 of 50 of the wealthiest.
These affluent voters prefer Democratic policies on abortion, gay rights and climate change – but only as long as they do not have to pay higher taxes. Back in 2015, Hillary Clinton promised that, if she were elected president, there would be no tax increases on households making less than $250,000. Biden went further this year, promising that taxes would not go up on households that make less than $400,000 a year.
Because it is impossible to fund the Nordic-style welfare state of which American progressives dream without raising taxes on the merely affluent as well as the super-rich, the Democratic party’s pandering to the affluent on taxes means that there will not be a Green New Deal, a major expansion of social insurance and social programs, or massive public investment in infrastructure. To appease the Democratic party’s new high-income voters and donors, the last two Democratic presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, abandoned their ambitious spending plans once elected and pivoted toward austerity and deficit reduction. It remains to be seen whether Biden will do the same.
Progressive Democrats have a choice. They can continue to be junior partners in a whiter and more gentrified Democratic party that nods toward racial justice and environmentalism and sexual freedom, but says no to a new New Deal. Or they can try to rebuild something like the New Deal coalition and win back sociallymoderate and conservative voters – some of them voters of color – who favor expanding social security and a higher minimum wage, but oppose affirmative action and abortion and decriminalizing illegal immigration. In either case, progressives must accept that they are only a quarter of the US population and cannot hope to win or exercise power without teaming up with people who reject many progressive views.


theguardian--2020-12-19--'Folks, we're in crisis': Joe Biden introduces environmental advisers

President-elect Joe Biden announced a racially diverse slate of environmental advisers on Saturday , to help his administration confront what he called “ the existential threat of our time , climate change ” .
Biden touted his selection of Deb Haaland as the first Native American secretary of the interior , which has wielded influence over the nation ’ s tribes for generations .
North Carolina official Michael Regan is slated to be the first African American man to run the Environmental Protection Agency .
A state environmental head since 2017 , he has made his name pursuing clean-ups of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities significantly affected by pollution .
“ Already there are more people of color in our cabinet than any cabinet ever , ” Biden said .
Six members of his proposed cabinet are African American .
His commitment to diverse picks including a record number of women , he said , “ opens doors and includes the full range of talents that we have in this nation ” .
“ We literally have no time to waste , ” Biden told reporters in Wilmington , Delaware , citing out-of-control wildfires that have devastated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pummelled ” the south , and record floods and droughts that have ravaged the agricultural midwest .
“ Folks , we ’ re in a crisis , ” Biden said .
“ Just like we need a unified national response to Covid-19 , we need a unified national response to climate change .
We need to meet the moment with the urgency it demands , as we would during any national emergency.
” Biden ’ s approach is a shift from that of Donald Trump , whose presidency has been marked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while rolling back government measures intended to safeguard the environment .
The Trump administration is seeking to start as many initiatives as possible before Biden takes power .
Biden , who has said he will seek US re-entry into the Paris climate deal , from which Trump withdrew , will therefore try to undo or block as much of Trump ’ s work as possible .
There also will be an emphasis on looking out for low-income , working class and minority communities hit hardest by fossil fuel pollution and climate change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in line to be energy secretary .
Biden ’ s nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality is Brenda Mallory .
The CEQ oversees environmental reviews for virtually all major infrastructure projects and advises the president on major environmental issues .
If confirmed , Mallory would be the first African American to hold the position since it was created more than 50 years ago .
Two members of the team do not require Senate confirmation .
They are Gina McCarthy , as national climate adviser , and Ali Zaidi , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 to 2017 , during Barack Obama ’ s second term .
Biden has promised to make tackling the climate crisis one of the pillars of his administration .
But with a slim majority in the House of Representatives and control of the Senate undecided , he and his team may have to turn away from Congress and instead rely on rules from regulatory agencies to enact sweeping change .
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report

President-elect Joe Biden announced a racially diverse slate of environmental advisers on Saturday, to help his administration confront what he called “the existential threat of our time, climate change”.
Biden touted his selection of Deb Haaland as the first Native American secretary of the interior, which has wielded influence over the nation’s tribes for generations.
North Carolina official Michael Regan is slated to be the first African American man to run the Environmental Protection Agency. A state environmental head since 2017, he has made his name pursuing clean-ups of industrial toxins and helping low-income and minority communities significantly affected by pollution.
“Already there are more people of color in our cabinet than any cabinet ever,” Biden said. Six members of his proposed cabinet are African American.
His commitment to diverse picks including a record number of women, he said, “opens doors and includes the full range of talents that we have in this nation”.
“We literally have no time to waste,” Biden told reporters in Wilmington, Delaware, citing out-of-control wildfires that have devastated the western states, tropical storms that “pummelled” the south, and record floods and droughts that have ravaged the agricultural midwest.
Deb Haaland at the Queen Theater on Saturday. Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Getty Images
“Folks, we’re in a crisis,” Biden said. “Just like we need a unified national response to Covid-19, we need a unified national response to climate change. We need to meet the moment with the urgency it demands, as we would during any national emergency.”
Haaland, who has struggled with homelessness and relied on food stamps at one point, said her life has not been easy. “This moment is profound when we consider the fact that a former secretary of the interior once proclaimed his goal, was to quote, ‘civilize or exterminate’ us,” Haaland said, referring to Alexander H H Stuart, who said that in 1851. “I’m a living testament to the failure of that horrific ideology.”
Biden’s approach is a shift from that of Donald Trump, whose presidency has been marked by efforts to boost oil and gas production while rolling back government measures intended to safeguard the environment. The Trump administration is seeking to start as many initiatives as possible before Biden takes power.
Biden, who has said he will seek US re-entry into the Paris climate deal, from which Trump withdrew, will therefore try to undo or block as much of Trump’s work as possible. There also will be an emphasis on looking out for low-income, working class and minority communities hit hardest by fossil fuel pollution and climate change.
Biden called his team “brilliant, qualified, tested and barrier-busting”.
The former two-term Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm is in line to be energy secretary. Biden’s nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality is Brenda Mallory. The CEQ oversees environmental reviews for virtually all major infrastructure projects and advises the president on major environmental issues. If confirmed, Mallory would be the first African American to hold the position since it was created more than 50 years ago.
Two members of the team do not require Senate confirmation. They are Gina McCarthy, as national climate adviser, and Ali Zaidi, her deputy. McCarthy was EPA administrator from 2013 to 2017, during Barack Obama’s second term.
Biden has promised to make tackling the climate crisis one of the pillars of his administration. But with a slim majority in the House of Representatives and control of the Senate undecided, he and his team may have to turn away from Congress and instead rely on rules from regulatory agencies to enact sweeping change.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report


theguardian--2020-12-19--Trump wanted conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel on voter fraud – report

Donald Trump pushed to have the lawyer and “ kraken ” conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell named as a special counsel to investigate supposed electoral fraud , the New York Times reported on Saturday .
Citing two anonymous sources , the newspaper said most presidential advisers including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pushed back against the plan , which Trump floated at a meeting on Friday .
The Times also reported that Trump asked aides about the former national security adviser Michael Flynn ’ s suggestion of deploying the US military to battleground states , in order to re-stage votes central to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was also shot down , ” the well-sourced reporter Maggie Haberman wrote , drily , on Twitter .
Trump pardoned Flynn , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation , in November .
Biden ’ s victory has been certified by the electoral college and the Democrat leads in the popular vote by more than 7m ballots .
Nonetheless , Trump has refused to concede and claims without evidence that the election was rigged against him .
It was reported this week that he had threatened not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , 20 January .
“ He ’ s throwing a fucking temper tantrum , ” CNN quoted an unnamed adviser as saying .
“ He ’ s going to leave .
He ’ s just lashing out.
” But the same report cited an anonymous source as saying the atmosphere in the White House had “ turned crazy ” .
Trump ’ s legal team suffered more than 50 defeats in court cases over electoral fraud .
Powell was cut from the team almost a month ago , after making bizarre claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states was created at the direction of the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez , who died in 2013 .
She also promised to “ release the kraken ” , a reference to a terrible sea monster of myth and legend .
No kraken , legal or otherwise , was forthcoming .
The Times report about Trump ’ s wish to bring her back into the fold came shortly after the president played down Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s admission that a vast hack against the US government and private companies had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was at the White House for a meeting that became raucous at times ” , the Times said .
“ Other administration officials drifted in and out … and the White House counsel , Pat Cipollone , pushed back on the ideas being proposed .
“ Ms Powell accused other Trump advisers of being quitters … but the idea that Mr Trump would try to install Ms Powell in a position to investigate the outcome sent shock waves through the president ’ s circle.
” The paper also said Giuliani had “ separately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seize possession of voting machines ” , but had been “ told the department does not have the authority to do such a thing ” .
On Twitter , Haberman added : “ The fact of the meeting – and Giuliani hope of seizing the voting machines – has alarmed some of the president ’ s advisers , who see his … refusal to accept the election results as in a dangerous new place .
”

Donald Trump pushed to have the lawyer and “kraken” conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell named as a special counsel to investigate supposed electoral fraud, as he grasps for straws to stay in power.
The development was first reported by the New York Times on Saturday, citing two anonymous sources. The NYT said most presidential advisers including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pushed back against the plan, which Trump floated at a meeting on Friday.
The Times also reported that Trump asked aides about the former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s suggestion of deploying the US military to battleground states, in order to re-stage votes central to Joe Biden’s victory.
“That was also shot down,” the well-sourced reporter Maggie Haberman wrote, drily, on Twitter.
Trump pardoned Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation, in November.
Biden’s victory has been certified by the electoral college and the Democrat leads in the popular vote by more than 7m ballots. Nonetheless, Trump has refused to concede and claims without evidence that the election was rigged against him.
It was reported this week that he had threatened not to leave the White House on inauguration day, 20 January.
“He’s throwing a fucking temper tantrum,” CNN quoted an unnamed adviser as saying. “He’s going to leave. He’s just lashing out.”
But the same report cited an anonymous source as saying the atmosphere in the White House had “turned crazy”.
Trump’s legal team suffered more than 50 defeats in court cases over electoral fraud. Powell was cut from the team almost a month ago, after making bizarre claims including that voting software used in key states was created at the direction of the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013.
She also promised to “release the kraken”, a reference to a terrible sea monster of myth and legend. No kraken, legal or otherwise, was forthcoming.
The Times report about Trump’s wish to bring her back into the fold came shortly after the president played down Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s admission that a vast hack against the US government and private companies had been carried out by Russia.
Powell “was at the White House for a meeting that became raucous at times”, the Times said. “Other administration officials drifted in and out … and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, pushed back on the ideas being proposed.
“Ms Powell accused other Trump advisers of being quitters … but the idea that Mr Trump would try to install Ms Powell in a position to investigate the outcome sent shock waves through the president’s circle.”
The paper also said Giuliani had “separately pressed the Department of Homeland Security to seize possession of voting machines”, but had been “told the department does not have the authority to do such a thing”.
On Twitter, Haberman added: “The fact of the meeting – and Giuliani hope of seizing the voting machines – has alarmed some of the president’s advisers, who see his … refusal to accept the election results as in a dangerous new place.”


theguardian--2020-12-19--What we know – and still don’t – about the worst-ever US government cyber-attack

Nearly a week after the US government announced that multiple federal agencies had been targeted by a sweeping cyber-attack , the full scope and consequences of the suspected Russian hack remain unknown .
Key federal agencies , from the Department of Homeland Security to the agency that oversees America ’ s nuclear weapons arsenal , were reportedly targeted , as were powerful tech and security companies including Microsoft .
Investigators are still trying to determine what information the hackers may have stolen , and what they could do with it .
After days of silence , Donald Trump on Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said posed a “ grave risk ” to every level of government , and said it was “ well under control ” .
Joe Biden has promised a tougher response to cyber-attacks but offered no specifics .
Members of Congress are demanding more information about what happened , even as officials scrambling for answers call the attack “ significant and ongoing ” .
Here ’ s a look at what we know , and what we still don ’ t , about the worst-ever cyber-attack on US federal agencies .
The hack began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ code was snuck into updates to a popular software called Orion , made by the company SolarWinds , which provides network-monitoring and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organizations around the world , including most Fortune 500 companies and government agencies in North America , Europe , Asia and the Middle East .
That malware gave elite hackers remote access to an organization ’ s networks so they could steal information .
The apparent months-long timeline gave the hackers ample opportunity to extract information from targets including monitoring email and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attack that is remarkable for its scope , sophistication and impact ” .
Who has been affected ?
At least six US government departments , including energy , commerce , treasury and state , are reported to have been breached .
The National Nuclear Security Administration ’ s networks were also breached , Politico reported on Thursday .
Dozens of security and other technology firms , as well as non-governmental organizations , were also affected , Microsoft said on Thursday .
While most affected by the attack were in the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada , Mexico , Belgium , Spain , the United Kingdom , Israel and the United Arab Emirates .
“ It ’ s certain that the number and location of victims will keep growing , ” Microsoft added .
Who is responsible for the attack ?
On Friday evening , secretary of state Mike Pompeo became the first Trump official to publicly confirm the attack was linked to Russia , telling a conservative radio host : “ I think it ’ s the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity.
” Previously , US officials speaking on condition of anonymity , as well as prominent cybersecurity experts , told media outlets they believed Russia was the culprit , specifically SVR , Russia ’ s foreign intelligence outfit .
Andrei Soldatov , an expert on Russia ’ s spy agencies and the author of The Red Web , told the Guardian he believes the hack was more likely a joint effort of Russia ’ s SVR and FSB , the domestic spy agency Vladimir Putin once led .
Russia has denied involvement : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russians for everything , ” a Kremlin spokesman said .
The infiltration tactic involved in the current hack , known as the “ supply chain ” method , recalled the technique Russian military hackers used in 2016 to infect companies that do business in Ukraine with the hard-drive-wiping NotPetya virus – the most damaging cyber-attack to date .
What information has been stolen , and how is it being used ?
“ This hack was so big in scope that even our cybersecurity experts don ’ t have a real sense yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intrusion itself , ” Stephen Lynch , head of the House of Representatives oversight committee , said after attending a classified briefing on Friday .
Thomas Rid , a Johns Hopkins cyber-conflict expert , told the Associated Press it was likely the hackers had harvested such a vast quantity of data that “ they themselves most likely don ’ t know yet ” what useful information they ’ ve stolen .
What can be done to fix the networks that have been compromised ?
That ’ s also unclear , and potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actor from compromised environments will be highly complex and challenging for organizations , ” said a statement from the cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( Cisa ) on Thursday .
One of Trump ’ s former homeland security advisers , Thomas Bossert , has said publicly that a real fix may take years , and be both costly and challenging .
“ It will take years to know for certain which networks the Russians control and which ones they just occupy , ” Bossert wrote in the New York Times .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if the Russian government has control of all the networks it has penetrated .
“ A ‘ do-over ’ is mandatory and entire new networks need to be built – and isolated from compromised networks.
” For most of the week , the president said nothing .
On Saturday morning , he sent a tweet dismissing the seriousness of the attack and contradicting his own officials ’ statements about Russia ’ s responsibility .
Officials at the White House had been prepared to put out a statement on Friday afternoon , accusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , but were told at the last minute to stand down , the AP reported , citing a US official familiar with the conversations .
The Republican senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Trump ’ s long silence as unacceptable in response to an attack he said was “ like Russian bombers have been repeatedly flying undetected over our entire country ” .
“ Not to have the White House aggressively speaking out and protesting and taking punitive action is really , really quite extraordinary , ” Romney said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptical of holding Russia responsible , a statement made just hours after his secretary of state said publicly the attack was “ clearly ” linked to Russia .
“ Russia , Russia , Russia is the priority chant when anything happens , ” Trump tweeted , questioning , without any evidence , whether China might have been behind the attack instead .
“ Another day , another scandalous betrayal of our national security by this president , ” Adam Schiff , the California Democrat who chairs the House intelligence committee and led impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So far , there ’ s been tough talk but no clear plan from the president-elect .
“ We need to disrupt and deter our adversaries from undertaking significant cyber-attacks in the first place , ” Biden said .
“ We will do that by , among other things , imposing substantial costs on those responsible for such malicious attacks , including in coordination with our allies and partners .
“ There ’ s a lot we don ’ t yet know , but what we do know is a matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been prevented or deterred ?
“ What we could have done is had a coherent approach and not been at odds with each other , ” said Fiona Hill , a Russia expert and former National Security Council member , to PBS NewsHour , criticizing conflict and dysfunction within the Trump administration and between the US and allies on Russia-related issues .
That dysfunction was on new display on Saturday , as Trump publicly disputed his own secretary of state ’ s explanation .
If “ we don ’ t have the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another , and we ’ re working together with our allies to push back on this , that would have a serious deterrent effect ” , Hill said .
Other cybersecurity experts said the federal government could also do more to simply keep up to date on cybersecurity issues , and said the Trump administration had failed on this front , including by eliminating the positions of White House cybersecurity coordinator and state department cybersecurity policy chief .
“ It ’ s been a frustrating time , the last four years .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all in cybersecurity , ” Brandon Valeriano , a Marine Corps University scholar and adviser to a US cyber-defense commission , to the AP .
What options does the US have to respond politically ?
Some experts are arguing the US needs to do more to punish Russia .
The federal government could impose formal sanctions , as when the Obama administration expelled diplomats in retaliation for Kremlin military hackers ’ meddling in Trump ’ s favor in the 2016 election .
Or the US could fight back more covertly by , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s financial dealings .
But as the Guardian ’ s Luke Harding pointed out , cyber-attacks are “ cheap , deniable , and psychologically effective ” , and Biden ’ s options for responding are limited .
“ The answer eluded Barack Obama , who tried unsuccessfully to reset relations with Putin , ” Harding wrote .
“ The person who led this doomed mission was the then secretary of state , Hillary Clinton , herself a Russian hacking victim in 2016.
” The state department said on Saturday the US was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yekaterinburg , citing safety and security issues at facilities where operations had been curtailed because of Covid-19 .
The decision did not affect Russian consulates in the US , the department said , but the closures will leave the embassy in Moscow as the last US diplomatic mission in Russia .
What are other potential consequences of the hack ?
SolarWinds may face legal action from customers and government entities affected by the breach .
The company filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday , detailing the hack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ products was about $ 343m , or roughly 45 % of its total revenue .
SolarWinds ’ stock price has fallen 25 % since news of the breach first broke .
Moody ’ s Investors Service said on Wednesday it was looking to downgrade its rating for the company , citing the “ potential for reputational damage , material loss of customers , a slowdown in business performance and high remediation and legal costs ” .


theguardian--2020-12-19--Second federal prisoner scheduled to die in weeks has Covid, lawyers say

A second federal prisoner scheduled to be put to death next month , as the Trump administration rushes to execute more people before Joe Biden takes power , has tested positive for Covid-19 , his lawyers said on Friday .
Cory Johnson ’ s diagnosis came a day after attorneys for Dustin John Higgs confirmed he had tested positive at a US prison in Terre Haute , Indiana , where both men are on death row .
Johnson , Higgs and a third inmate , Lisa Montgomery , are scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
The Trump administration resumed federal executions after a 17-year pause in July and has carried out 10 death sentences since then , including two last week .
It has executed more people in a single year than any other administration in more than 130 years and this year has killed more inmates than all the states put together .
Johnson ’ s lawyers , Donald Salzman and Ronald Tabak , called on federal authorities to strike their client ’ s current execution date of 14 January – six days before inauguration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day later .
Montgomery ’ s execution date is 12 January , but because she is the only woman on federal death row she is held at a separate prison in Texas and would need to be brought to Indiana to be executed .
She would be the first woman killed by the US government in 67 years .
Johnson ’ s attorneys said his infection would make it difficult to interact with him in the critical days leading up to his scheduled execution , adding : “ The widespread outbreak on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckless disregard for the lives and safety of staff , prisoners , and attorneys alike.
” “ If the government will not withdraw the execution date , we will ask the courts to intervene , ” they said .
The US Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons did not respond to requests for comment .
Prosecutors alleged Johnson was a crack cocaine dealer who killed seven people in 1992 in an attempt to expand the territory of a Richmond , Virginia , gang and silence informants .
His legal team has argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a far below average IQ , and therefore ineligible for the death penalty .
Higgs was convicted of ordering the 1996 murders of three women in Maryland .
Montgomery was convicted of using a rope to strangle a pregnant woman in 2004 and then using a kitchen knife to cut the baby girl from the womb , authorities said .
The Bureau of Prisons confirmed in a statement on Thursday that inmates on federal death row have tested positive for Covid-19 .
As of Thursday , there were more than 300 inmates with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Bureau of Prisons said “ many of these inmates are asymptomatic or exhibiting mild symptoms ” .
Nationwide , one in every five state and federal prisoners has tested positive for the coronavirus , a rate more than four times as high as the general population , according to data collected by the Associated Press and the Marshall Project .

Associated Press in Terre Haute, Indiana

A second federal prisoner scheduled to be put to death next month, as the Trump administration rushes to execute more people before Joe Biden takes power, has tested positive for Covid-19, his lawyers said on Friday.
Cory Johnson’s diagnosis came a day after attorneys for Dustin Higgs confirmed he had tested positive at a US prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, where both men are on death row.
Johnson, Higgs and a third inmate, Lisa Montgomery, are scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection at the federal complex just days before Biden takes office.
The Trump administration resumed federal executions after a 17-year pause in July and has carried out 10 death sentences since then, including two last week. It has executed more people in a single year than any other administration in more than 130 years and this year has killed more inmates than all the states put together.
Johnson’s lawyers, Donald Salzman and Ronald Tabak, called on federal authorities to strike their client’s current execution date of 14 January – six days before inauguration day. Higgs is scheduled to die a day later.
Montgomery’s execution date is 12 January, but because she is the only woman on federal death row she is held at a separate prison in Texas and would need to be brought to Indiana to be executed. She would be the first woman killed by the US government in 67 years.
Johnson’s attorneys said his infection would make it difficult to interact with him in the critical days leading up to his scheduled execution, adding: “The widespread outbreak on the federal death row only confirms the reckless disregard for the lives and safety of staff, prisoners, and attorneys alike.”
“If the government will not withdraw the execution date, we will ask the courts to intervene,” they said.
The US Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons did not respond to requests for comment.
Prosecutors alleged Johnson was a crack cocaine dealer who killed seven people in 1992 in an attempt to expand the territory of a Richmond, Virginia, gang and silence informants. His legal team has argued that he is intellectually disabled, with a far below average IQ, and therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
Higgs was convicted of ordering the 1996 murders of three women in Maryland. Montgomery was convicted of using a rope to strangle a pregnant woman in 2004 and then using a kitchen knife to cut the baby girl from the womb, authorities said.
The Bureau of Prisons confirmed in a statement on Thursday that inmates on federal death row have tested positive for Covid-19. As of Thursday, there were more than 300 inmates with confirmed cases at FCC Terre Haute. The Bureau of Prisons said “many of these inmates are asymptomatic or exhibiting mild symptoms”.
Nationwide, one in every five state and federal prisoners has tested positive for the coronavirus, a rate more than four times as high as the general population, according to data collected by the Associated Press and the Marshall Project.