theguardian--2020-01-14--'They treated me like a terrorist': the vetted Iranians deported on arrival to the US

Mohammad Elmi was on his way to fulfill a lifelong dream .
On 13 December 2019 , the 31-year-old Iranian boarded a flight to Los Angeles to join his wife in the United States and start a PhD program at the University of California , Santa Barbara .
Sixty-five hours later , he was back in the Iranian capital , Tehran , refused entry to the United States by immigration officers at the airport .
In Iran , Elmi had helped design the country ’ s first portable electrocardiogram device , which made cardiac monitoring more accessible to rural populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications of electrical engineering in Santa Barbara , where his wife Shima Mousavi is pursuing a master ’ s degree , and had received a visa to travel to the US .
Preparing for the move , he had left his job and depleted his savings , planning to live off his new teaching and research assistant position .
But when Elmi stepped off the plane after a long , sleepless flight , he was detained by US Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) .
Over the next 24 hours , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a restricted section of Los Angeles international airport and was searched and questioned repeatedly by CBP .
Mousavi waited near the airport for eight hours before her phone rang .
“ I ’ m so sorry , ” Elmi told her .
“ They are sending me back to Iran.
” Last year , the Guardian reported US authorities were increasingly stopping Iranian students from boarding US-bound flights without informing them their visas had been cancelled prior to travel .
In recent months , however , a growing number of Iranians with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrival at US airports by Customs and Border Protection and deported back to Iran .
Some of them have been barred from returning to the United States for years .
Since August , at least 10 students have been sent back to Iran upon their arrival at US airports , the Guardian found , the most recent of whom was deported on 3 January .
Seven of those 10 students had flown into Logan international airport in Boston , where some of them allege serious infractions by CBP , including multiple complaints about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans , a not-for-profit advocacy organization , the removal of Iranian students upon their arrival “ has increased substantially within the past few months ” as political tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated .
“ The number of cases we hear about from other communities does not compare to what ’ s happening to Iranians , ” said Ali Rahnama , PAAIA attorney .
By the time Iranian students arrive at a US airport , they ’ ve already gone through a lengthy and intense approval process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Trump administration ’ s travel ban , which bars most Iranians from traveling to the US .
While most student visa applications are handled within US embassies , visas for Iranians are vetted by US intelligence agencies in Washington DC and greenlit by the Department of Homeland Security before being issued .
Despite the rigorous vetting process , CBP appeared to question , in most of the deported students ’ cases , whether their past or future work might violate US sanctions on Iran ’ s government , nuclear and energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused them during questioning of concealing connections with the Iranian government they had allegedly established during the two years of military service all men in Iran must complete .
Those students said they had fulfilled their military service doing low-level administrative tasks .
Elmi worked in an office that provided housing loans to army personnel .
Javad , an incoming University of Pittsburgh student who declined to give his last name out of concern for future visa applications , said he was told by CBP officers at the Boston airport he was being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his service , even though he had completed his military service filing paperwork in a dentistry office .
Another student who declined to be identified said he was deported from Boston after officers found a photo on his phone showing him in military uniform .
Several immigration attorneys said they could not make sense of these deportations .
“ Why should an eight-month visa process be thrown out over a couple questions at the airport ?
” Rahnama said .
“ These students already disclosed all their information and went through months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added .
Elmi said many of the questions CBP asked him at LAX had come up during his visa application process months earlier .
“ They were the exact same questions , ” he said .
“ If there was any problem with my career , they should not have issued me a visa , ” said Mahla Shahkhajeh , an incoming Iowa State University graduate student , who was refused entry at the Boston airport in late December over her work for a packaging company that sold products to companies associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quit her job after receiving her US visa , moved out of her apartment , turned down other PhD offers and bought a plane ticket to the US that cost four months ’ pay .
“ They ruined my plans for the next five years , ” she said .
In addition to being questioned , the students say they had their phones , laptops and hard drives searched .
Some were asked questions about their religious and political beliefs .
Between rounds of questioning , officers searched the contents of Elmi ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone and write down the password .
Then in another room , they told him to spread his legs and put his hands on the wall .
“ They started with my legs and worked up , ” Elmi said .
“ They treated me like I was a terrorist.
” Several of the students who were deported from the Boston airport said the screening there was aggressive and in some cases abusive .
A student held for questioning at the airport in August while he was en route to Detroit said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a metal table .
“ In the room , the officer ’ s behavior changed .
He got aggressive , ” said the student , who declined to be identified for fear of retribution in future visa applications .
“ Tell us the fucking truth !
” the student remembers the officer shouting .
“ I was so scared I was shaking , ” the student said .
The officer asked him if he was a radical Muslim .
Other students reported that same officer had shouted at them , asking one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he “ likes blondes like other Arabs do ” .
One student said he was told by a CBP translator in Logan airport to avoid flying through Boston in the future .
“ If you get a new visa , ” the student recalls the translator saying , “ don ’ t fly through Boston .
The rules are stricter here.
” All of the students denied entry in Boston were officially deported and banned from the US for five years .
Multiple students said CBP gave them records of their questioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while others were put on planes back to Iran without a copy of the paperwork .
“ I don ’ t know under which section of the law I was not allowed to enter the US , ” Shahkhajeh said .
CBP told the Guardian it was not at liberty to discuss an individual ’ s processing and that it prohibits profiling on the basis of race or religion .
“ CBP has understood Iran and its proxies to be a very capable adversary for some time , ” a CBP spokesperson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding that the agency “ is operating with an enhanced security posture ” .
CBP did not respond to specific questions about the practices at Logan airport .
PAAIA said it plans to file a complaint on behalf of the students with the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties .
The advocacy group will ask for an investigation into whether there is a nationwide change in policy causing the deportation of Iranians at ports of entry , or whether certain airports might have issued their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ What is happening with Iranian students is incredibly surprising , ” said Mahsa Khanbabai , the New England chapter chair for the American Immigration Lawyers Association ( AILA ) .
“ It definitely warrants an investigation.
” After eight hours at the Los Angeles airport , an officer told Elmi he could go back to Iran voluntarily or roll the dice and let CBP either grant him entry or formally deport him , an outcome that would come with a five-year ban from the US .
Elmi started crying , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voluntarily withdraw without seeing his wife .
Eventually , CBP told Elmi he would be deported unless he chose to leave .
He agreed , and was given a $ 3,750 bill for the flight back to Iran .
Around 9pm , CBP stamped the words “ application for admission withdrawn ” in his passport and handed him a phone to call his wife .
“ It was a very short call , ” he said .
“ I wanted to show her that I am strong and this is not a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see me ?
” Mousavi asked .
Mousavi searched the airport for help finding her husband , but the CBP office was closed for the night .
She wandered through the terminal until daybreak .
To console herself , she wrote Elmi a text message , though she knew he would not receive it .
“ Here in the airport I can feel you close to me.
” She was still at the airport at 3pm when Elmi used in-flight wifi to send her a voice message , asking her to forgive him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been adrift .
Their financial losses are compounded by the dramatic fall of the Iranian rial over the past several years , largely a result of US sanctions .
Now they ’ re broke , jobless and thousands of miles apart with no idea when they will be able to see each other .
Mousavi does not know where she will find the money to complete her master ’ s program .

Mohammad Elmi was on his way to fulfill a lifelong dream. On 13 December 2019, the 31-year-old Iranian boarded a flight to Los Angeles to join his wife in the United States and start a PhD program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Sixty-five hours later, he was back in the Iranian capital, Tehran, refused entry to the United States by immigration officers at the airport.
In Iran, Elmi had helped design the country’s first portable electrocardiogram device, which made cardiac monitoring more accessible to rural populations. He was accepted to study biomedical applications of electrical engineering in Santa Barbara, where his wife Shima Mousavi is pursuing a master’s degree, and had received a visa to travel to the US. Preparing for the move, he had left his job and depleted his savings, planning to live off his new teaching and research assistant position.
But when Elmi stepped off the plane after a long, sleepless flight, he was detained by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Over the next 24 hours, he was held in a series of rooms in a restricted section of Los Angeles international airport and was searched and questioned repeatedly by CBP. Mousavi waited near the airport for eight hours before her phone rang. “I’m so sorry,” Elmi told her. “They are sending me back to Iran.”
Last year, the Guardian reported US authorities were increasingly stopping Iranian students from boarding US-bound flights without informing them their visas had been cancelled prior to travel. In recent months, however, a growing number of Iranians with valid student visas have been detained upon arrival at US airports by Customs and Border Protection and deported back to Iran. Some of them have been barred from returning to the United States for years.
Since August, at least 10 students have been sent back to Iran upon their arrival at US airports, the Guardian found, the most recent of whom was deported on 3 January. Seven of those 10 students had flown into Logan international airport in Boston, where some of them allege serious infractions by CBP, including multiple complaints about an individual officer.
According to the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, a not-for-profit advocacy organization, the removal of Iranian students upon their arrival “has increased substantially within the past few months” as political tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated. “The number of cases we hear about from other communities does not compare to what’s happening to Iranians,” said Ali Rahnama, PAAIA attorney.
Mohammad Elmi, center back in red, said goodbye to friends and family at the airport in Tehran before leaving for California. Photograph: The Guardian
‘They ruined my plans for years’
By the time Iranian students arrive at a US airport, they’ve already gone through a lengthy and intense approval process. Iranians with student visas are exempt from the Trump administration’s travel ban, which bars most Iranians from traveling to the US. While most student visa applications are handled within US embassies, visas for Iranians are vetted by US intelligence agencies in Washington DC and greenlit by the Department of Homeland Security before being issued.
Despite the rigorous vetting process, CBP appeared to question, in most of the deported students’ cases, whether their past or future work might violate US sanctions on Iran’s government, nuclear and energy sectors.
Several deported students said CBP accused them during questioning of concealing connections with the Iranian government they had allegedly established during the two years of military service all men in Iran must complete. Those students said they had fulfilled their military service doing low-level administrative tasks.
Elmi worked in an office that provided housing loans to army personnel. Javad, an incoming University of Pittsburgh student who declined to give his last name out of concern for future visa applications, said he was told by CBP officers at the Boston airport he was being deported because of a sanctions violation relating to his service, even though he had completed his military service filing paperwork in a dentistry office. Another student who declined to be identified said he was deported from Boston after officers found a photo on his phone showing him in military uniform.
Several immigration attorneys said they could not make sense of these deportations. “Why should an eight-month visa process be thrown out over a couple questions at the airport?” Rahnama said. “These students already disclosed all their information and went through months and months of security clearance,” he added.
Why should an eight-month visa process be thrown out over a couple of questions? These students went through months of security clearance Ali Rahnama
Elmi said many of the questions CBP asked him at LAX had come up during his visa application process months earlier. “They were the exact same questions,” he said.
“If there was any problem with my career, they should not have issued me a visa,” said Mahla Shahkhajeh, an incoming Iowa State University graduate student, who was refused entry at the Boston airport in late December over her work for a packaging company that sold products to companies associated with Iranian oil production. Shahkhajeh had quit her job after receiving her US visa, moved out of her apartment, turned down other PhD offers and bought a plane ticket to the US that cost four months’ pay. “They ruined my plans for the next five years,” she said.
‘They treated me like a terrorist’
In addition to being questioned, the students say they had their phones, laptops and hard drives searched. Some were asked questions about their religious and political beliefs.
Between rounds of questioning, officers searched the contents of Elmi’s bags and made him unlock his phone and write down the password. Then in another room, they told him to spread his legs and put his hands on the wall. “They started with my legs and worked up,” Elmi said. “They treated me like I was a terrorist.”
Several of the students who were deported from the Boston airport said the screening there was aggressive and in some cases abusive. A student held for questioning at the airport in August while he was en route to Detroit said he was led to a private room with a metal table. “In the room, the officer’s behavior changed. He got aggressive,” said the student, who declined to be identified for fear of retribution in future visa applications. “Tell us the fucking truth!” the student remembers the officer shouting. “I was so scared I was shaking,” the student said. The officer asked him if he was a radical Muslim.
Other students reported that same officer had shouted at them, asking one of them whether he had a girlfriend and if he “likes blondes like other Arabs do”.
One student said he was told by a CBP translator in Logan airport to avoid flying through Boston in the future. “If you get a new visa,” the student recalls the translator saying, “don’t fly through Boston. The rules are stricter here.”
All of the students denied entry in Boston were officially deported and banned from the US for five years.
Multiple students said CBP gave them records of their questioning that were partly inaccurate or fabricated, while others were put on planes back to Iran without a copy of the paperwork. “I don’t know under which section of the law I was not allowed to enter the US,” Shahkhajeh said.
CBP told the Guardian it was not at liberty to discuss an individual’s processing and that it prohibits profiling on the basis of race or religion. “CBP has understood Iran and its proxies to be a very capable adversary for some time,” a CBP spokesperson, Nate Peeters, said in a statement, adding that the agency “is operating with an enhanced security posture”. CBP did not respond to specific questions about the practices at Logan airport.
PAAIA said it plans to file a complaint on behalf of the students with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The advocacy group will ask for an investigation into whether there is a nationwide change in policy causing the deportation of Iranians at ports of entry, or whether certain airports might have issued their own directives regarding the screening of Iranians. “What is happening with Iranian students is incredibly surprising,” said Mahsa Khanbabai, the New England chapter chair for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “It definitely warrants an investigation.”
Mohammad Elmi was denied entry to the US and his student visa revoked by Customs and Border Protection. Photograph: The Guardian
Broke, jobless, miles apart
After eight hours at the Los Angeles airport, an officer told Elmi he could go back to Iran voluntarily or roll the dice and let CBP either grant him entry or formally deport him, an outcome that would come with a five-year ban from the US.
Elmi started crying, and told the officer he couldn’t voluntarily withdraw without seeing his wife. Eventually, CBP told Elmi he would be deported unless he chose to leave. He agreed, and was given a $3,750 bill for the flight back to Iran.
Around 9pm, CBP stamped the words “application for admission withdrawn” in his passport and handed him a phone to call his wife. “It was a very short call,” he said. “I wanted to show her that I am strong and this is not a big problem.”
“Will they let you see me?” Mousavi asked.
“No,” Elmi said.
Mousavi searched the airport for help finding her husband, but the CBP office was closed for the night. She wandered through the terminal until daybreak. To console herself, she wrote Elmi a text message, though she knew he would not receive it. “Here in the airport I can feel you close to me.” She was still at the airport at 3pm when Elmi used in-flight wifi to send her a voice message, asking her to forgive him.
Since then, Elmi and Mousavi have been adrift. Their financial losses are compounded by the dramatic fall of the Iranian rial over the past several years, largely a result of US sanctions. Now they’re broke, jobless and thousands of miles apart with no idea when they will be able to see each other. Mousavi does not know where she will find the money to complete her master’s program.
“They destroyed us,” Elmi said.


theguardian--2020-01-14--Ex-lobbyist used Trump agriculture job to boost industry allies, emails reveal

This story was co-published with ProPublica .
In 2017 , Dow Chemical scored a long-sought-after victory : after a push from the US government , China approved the import of the company ’ s genetically modified herbicide-resistant corn seeds .
A grateful Dow lobbyist emailed a senior agriculture department official whose support had been critical : “ Thank you for your efforts in support of U.S. agriculture.
” That official , Rebeckah Adcock , was no stranger to Dow .
Before joining the Trump administration , Adcock was the chief lobbyist for the herbicide industry ’ s trade group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Adcock had helped her former industry colleagues in a variety of ways .
At Dow ’ s request , for example , she had arranged a meeting between a top company official and the secretary of agriculture , Sonny Perdue , about the seed issue .
Before the May 2017 meeting , a Dow lobbyist emailed Adcock : “ Do you know who will staff the secretary ?
” “ Roger ” , the lobbyist , Hunt Shipman , replied .
Then he joked about the potential conflict of a public servant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can have a chair on both sides of the table… maybe you can staff them both ?
: ) .
” It ’ s unclear if Adcock sat in on the meeting , but her government ethics agreement allowed her to communicate extensively and offer her assistance to the association ’ s members , including Dow .
Adcock isn ’ t the only lobbyist who has made her way to the federal government .
Roughly one of every 14 appointments in the Trump administration has been a lobbyist .
But previously unreported emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players to craft policy .
“ It ’ s highly inappropriate conduct , ” said Virginia Canter , chief ethics counsel for the not-for-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
Canter worked as an ethics attorney in the administrations of Bill Clinton , George W Bush and Barack Obama .
The emails were recently obtained by the Sierra Club and the liberal freedom of information group American Oversight .
The groups requested the communications in response to a ProPublica and New York Times investigation that revealed the industry ties of Adcock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees are subject to standards of conduct that require them to be impartial and to seek authorization before participating in matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned .
“ As a US official , she can not represent any person ’ s interest other than the [ US government ’ s ] in matters in which US interests are at stake , ” Canter said .
Like other officials , Adcock signed a Trump administration ethics agreement , promising to avoid conflicts of interest .
But the agreement gave Adcock wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Dow and other clients of the herbicide and pesticide trade group she worked for .
Adcock did not respond to requests for comment .
Dow declined to comment .
The agriculture department said in a statement : “ Ms Adcock has acted in accordance with her ethics agreement ” because she was employed by the industry ’ s trade group instead of by Dow directly .
Adcock enjoys a broad mandate at the agriculture department .
She initially ran a team responsible for rolling back regulations deemed overly burdensome to industry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ close confidante of Perdue , and she has been involved in everything from coordinating Perdue ’ s 2018 rural bus tour in support of an expansive new farm bill to reinterpreting the federal Clean Water Act .
Industry players have asked Adcock to reach down into the bureaucracy on even small issues .
After a farmer in rural northern Illinois filled and graded a tributary and cleared four acres of forest along a government-protected creek , and the US army corps of engineers threatened him with fines of up to $ 37,500 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s liking , Don Parrish , a senior director at the American Farm Bureau Federation , contacted Adcock .
Emails show Parrish and Adcock repeatedly emailed about a section of the Clean Water Act that prevents companies from draining or filling wetlands and tributaries that flow into navigable water .
Adcock told Parrish she was “ getting answers ” to his questions .
It is unclear if the farmer had to pay any fines .
The ethics agreement Adcock signed said she would not work on “ the impact of crop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and insecticides ) on water ” , and the emails reviewed do not show her doing so .
But the agreement did not specifically bar Adcock from working with trade groups like the Farm Bureau on Clean Water Act enforcement .
Dow also came to Adcock with a problem that was affecting its bottom line .
The company had been struggling to get approval from China for three years .
“ It ’ s hugely political , ” a top company official said at the time , on an investor earnings call in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending a thorough amount of my time and my capital to China to get this one over the line.
” It was against that backdrop that , in May 2017 , Shipman , the lobbyist for the Dow subsidiary Dow AgroSciences , emailed Adcock seeking a meeting between Dow AgroScience ’ s CEO and the agriculture secretary , Perdue .
In one email exchange , Adcock asked Shipman for background information on trade barriers for seed products and Shipman sent three documents on China ’ s biotechnology crop approvals .
Two days later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce approval times , including a process to let US officials request speedier decisions and a commitment by China to rule on several outstanding biotech issues , including those of Dow AgroSciences .
Shipman was registered as a lobbyist for Dow AgroSciences through his firm , Cornerstone Government Affairs .
Lobbying records show he worked on biotechnology approval issues for the company in 2017 , with Cornerstone earning $ 290,000 .
Shipman did not report that he was lobbying the agriculture department .
Rather , the records indicate he was lobbying the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government lobbying restrictions .
Shipman and Cornerstone did not respond to requests for comment .
One week later , a different lobbyist – Joe Bischoff , who also represented both Dow and CropLife for Cornerstone – repeatedly emailed Adcock about a regulatory issue for a genetically modified petunia flower .
In the correspondence , he shared questions that Dow wanted a House member to ask Perdue in a hearing the next day .
The questions largely focused on China ’ s slow genetically modified crop import approvals .
The congressman , Rodney Davis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a biotechnology subcommittee , ended up asking Perdue about “ serious risks and uncertainty ” in “ the global marketplace ” China posed , mirroring some of the wording the Dow lobbyist had emailed his office and the House agriculture committee .
Davis ’ s office declined to comment about his role in asking the questions proposed by Dow .
After China approved Dow ’ s corn seed , the company spun off its agriculture business into a new subsidiary , Corteva .
The corn , branded “ Enlist ” , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for Dow ’ s seed business , for which the company projected sales to increase by $ 600m by 2020 .
A recent internal analysis shows that the new company is now the top corn seed producer in the Asia-Pacific region .

Derek Kravitz for ProPublica and Emily Holden

This story was co-published with ProPublica.
In 2017, Dow Chemical scored a long-sought-after victory: after a push from the US government, China approved the import of the company’s genetically modified herbicide-resistant corn seeds.
A grateful Dow lobbyist emailed a senior agriculture department official whose support had been critical: “Thank you for your efforts in support of U.S. agriculture.”
That official, Rebeckah Adcock, was no stranger to Dow. Before joining the Trump administration, Adcock was the chief lobbyist for the herbicide industry’s trade group, of which Dow was a prominent member.
Adcock had helped her former industry colleagues in a variety of ways. At Dow’s request, for example, she had arranged a meeting between a top company official and the secretary of agriculture, Sonny Perdue, about the seed issue.
Before the May 2017 meeting, a Dow lobbyist emailed Adcock: “Do you know who will staff the secretary?”
Adcock wrote back playfully: “Yes and u do too.”
“Roger”, the lobbyist, Hunt Shipman, replied. Then he joked about the potential conflict of a public servant helping former colleagues: “Maybe you can have a chair on both sides of the table… maybe you can staff them both? :).” It’s unclear if Adcock sat in on the meeting, but her government ethics agreement allowed her to communicate extensively and offer her assistance to the association’s members, including Dow.
Adcock isn’t the only lobbyist who has made her way to the federal government. Roughly one of every 14 appointments in the Trump administration has been a lobbyist. But previously unreported emails show Adcock repeatedly trading notes with industry players to craft policy.
“It’s highly inappropriate conduct,” said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the not-for-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Canter worked as an ethics attorney in the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama.
The emails were recently obtained by the Sierra Club and the liberal freedom of information group American Oversight. The groups requested the communications in response to a ProPublica and New York Times investigation that revealed the industry ties of Adcock and other administration officials.
All federal employees are subject to standards of conduct that require them to be impartial and to seek authorization before participating in matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned.
“As a US official, she cannot represent any person’s interest other than the [US government’s] in matters in which US interests are at stake,” Canter said.
Like other officials, Adcock signed a Trump administration ethics agreement, promising to avoid conflicts of interest. But the agreement gave Adcock wide berth, allowing her to offer help to Dow and other clients of the herbicide and pesticide trade group she worked for.
Adcock did not respond to requests for comment. Dow declined to comment.
The agriculture department said in a statement: “Ms Adcock has acted in accordance with her ethics agreement” because she was employed by the industry’s trade group instead of by Dow directly.
Adcock enjoys a broad mandate at the agriculture department. She initially ran a team responsible for rolling back regulations deemed overly burdensome to industry. Since then, she has become a close confidante of Perdue, and she has been involved in everything from coordinating Perdue’s 2018 rural bus tour in support of an expansive new farm bill to reinterpreting the federal Clean Water Act.
Industry players have asked Adcock to reach down into the bureaucracy on even small issues. After a farmer in rural northern Illinois filled and graded a tributary and cleared four acres of forest along a government-protected creek, and the US army corps of engineers threatened him with fines of up to $37,500 per day until it was improved to the government’s liking, Don Parrish, a senior director at the American Farm Bureau Federation, contacted Adcock.
Emails show Parrish and Adcock repeatedly emailed about a section of the Clean Water Act that prevents companies from draining or filling wetlands and tributaries that flow into navigable water. Adcock told Parrish she was “getting answers” to his questions. It is unclear if the farmer had to pay any fines.
The ethics agreement Adcock signed said she would not work on “the impact of crop protection products (including herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) on water”, and the emails reviewed do not show her doing so. But the agreement did not specifically bar Adcock from working with trade groups like the Farm Bureau on Clean Water Act enforcement.
Dow also came to Adcock with a problem that was affecting its bottom line.
The company had been struggling to get approval from China for three years. “It’s hugely political,” a top company official said at the time, on an investor earnings call in 2017. “So I’m spending a thorough amount of my time and my capital to China to get this one over the line.”
It was against that backdrop that, in May 2017, Shipman, the lobbyist for the Dow subsidiary Dow AgroSciences, emailed Adcock seeking a meeting between Dow AgroScience’s CEO and the agriculture secretary, Perdue.
In one email exchange, Adcock asked Shipman for background information on trade barriers for seed products and Shipman sent three documents on China’s biotechnology crop approvals.
Two days later, China agreed to take steps to reduce approval times, including a process to let US officials request speedier decisions and a commitment by China to rule on several outstanding biotech issues, including those of Dow AgroSciences.
Shipman was registered as a lobbyist for Dow AgroSciences through his firm, Cornerstone Government Affairs. Lobbying records show he worked on biotechnology approval issues for the company in 2017, with Cornerstone earning $290,000. Shipman did not report that he was lobbying the agriculture department. Rather, the records indicate he was lobbying the Senate and the House, which carry fewer government lobbying restrictions.
Shipman and Cornerstone did not respond to requests for comment.
One week later, a different lobbyist – Joe Bischoff, who also represented both Dow and CropLife for Cornerstone – repeatedly emailed Adcock about a regulatory issue for a genetically modified petunia flower.
In the correspondence, he shared questions that Dow wanted a House member to ask Perdue in a hearing the next day. The questions largely focused on China’s slow genetically modified crop import approvals. The congressman, Rodney Davis (an Illinois Republican), chairman of a biotechnology subcommittee, ended up asking Perdue about “serious risks and uncertainty” in “the global marketplace” China posed, mirroring some of the wording the Dow lobbyist had emailed his office and the House agriculture committee. Davis’s office declined to comment about his role in asking the questions proposed by Dow.
After China approved Dow’s corn seed, the company spun off its agriculture business into a new subsidiary, Corteva. The corn, branded “Enlist”, was hailed as “a key growth driver” for Dow’s seed business, for which the company projected sales to increase by $600m by 2020. A recent internal analysis shows that the new company is now the top corn seed producer in the Asia-Pacific region.


theguardian--2020-01-14--There’s only one winner in the Sanders-Warren ‘fight’: Joe Biden | Arwa Mahdawi

The Tuesday night Democratic presidential debate hasn ’ t kicked off yet , but there ’ s already been a heated pre-debate among the more progressive elements of the party about the details of a private conversation between Sanders and Warren .
On Monday CNN reported that , during a 2018 meeting in Warren ’ s apartment , Sanders said a woman wouldn ’ t be able to beat Trump in 2020 .
In a statement on Monday , Warren backed up the reporting , saying in a statement : “ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the characterization of his statements “ ludicrous ” .
“ What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could , ” Sanders said in a statement .
“ Do I believe a woman can win in 2020 ?
Of course !
After all , Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3m votes in 2016.
” The Washington Post appears to have corroborated this version of affairs , noting that “ one of the people with knowledge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman couldn ’ t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee ” .
You know what we have here ?
A whole lot of hearsay that has been blown dangerously out of proportion .
I have no idea what Sanders said in that 2018 meeting , but I do know that he ’ s not a misogynist .
Forget anonymous sources , there ’ s plenty of clear evidence that he thinks a woman could be elected president .
Indeed , there ’ s video footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And then there ’ s the fact that he encouraged Warren to enter the 2016 presidential race .
Not to mention his track record of supporting progressive young female politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar .
Calling Sanders , who is one of the very few high-profile politicians with a functioning moral compass , a misogynist is entirely nonsensical .
Does this mean I think Warren was lying about the conversation in order to get ahead in the polls , as some Sanders supporters have claimed ?
Absolutely not .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imperfectly and Warren understood him to be saying that a woman couldn ’ t beat Trump .
Sometimes a misunderstanding is just a misunderstanding .
In a perfect world , the 2018 conversation between Warren and Sanders would be a non-story .
Both candidates have progressive records that speak for themselves ; both candidates are on the same side .
Nothing is to be gained by pitting them against each other ; we should all be focusing on the bigger task of beating Trump .
Instead of fizzling into nothing , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst in certain factions of Sanders and Warren supporters .
Some Sanders fans have been encouraging people who donated to Warren ’ s campaign to ask for a refund ; # RefundWarren started trending on Twitter on Tuesday .
Meanwhile , some Warren supporters have been acting as if this simple misunderstanding is somehow part of the # MeToo moment and that if you don ’ t believe Warren then you don ’ t “ believe women ” .
This is unhelpful and insulting .
Much of the mainstream media , meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this supposed “ fight ” and reporting on the rift with incendiary headlines and apparent glee .
Ultimately , neither Sanders nor Warren will emerge out of this spat looking good .
The only real winner is Joe Biden .
He ’ s doing to his best to stay out of the news , as much as his gaffes will allow , and to maintain his frontrunner status .
There are plenty of people out there who would love to see progressives eat themselves , thus ensuring Biden gets the nomination .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfaction of sabotaging ourselves , shall we ?

Is Bernie Sanders a sexist?
Is Elizabeth Warren a liar?
The Tuesday night Democratic presidential debate hasn’t kicked off yet, but there’s already been a heated pre-debate among the more progressive elements of the party about the details of a private conversation between Sanders and Warren. On Monday CNN reported that, during a 2018 meeting in Warren’s apartment, Sanders said a woman wouldn’t be able to beat Trump in 2020.
In a statement on Monday, Warren backed up the reporting, saying in a statement: “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
Sanders, meanwhile, has called the characterization of his statements “ludicrous”.
“What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said in a statement. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3m votes in 2016.”
The Washington Post appears to have corroborated this version of affairs, noting that “one of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee”.
You know what we have here? A whole lot of hearsay that has been blown dangerously out of proportion
You know what we have here? A whole lot of hearsay that has been blown dangerously out of proportion. I have no idea what Sanders said in that 2018 meeting, but I do know that he’s not a misogynist. Forget anonymous sources, there’s plenty of clear evidence that he thinks a woman could be elected president. Indeed, there’s video footage of him saying just that in 1988. And then there’s the fact that he encouraged Warren to enter the 2016 presidential race. Not to mention his track record of supporting progressive young female politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. Calling Sanders, who is one of the very few high-profile politicians with a functioning moral compass, a misogynist is entirely nonsensical.
Does this mean I think Warren was lying about the conversation in order to get ahead in the polls, as some Sanders supporters have claimed? Absolutely not. I think that Sanders probably phrased his thoughts imperfectly and Warren understood him to be saying that a woman couldn’t beat Trump. Sometimes a misunderstanding is just a misunderstanding.
In a perfect world, the 2018 conversation between Warren and Sanders would be a non-story. Both candidates have progressive records that speak for themselves; both candidates are on the same side. Nothing is to be gained by pitting them against each other; we should all be focusing on the bigger task of beating Trump. Instead of fizzling into nothing, however, this story seems to have brought out the worst in certain factions of Sanders and Warren supporters.
Some Sanders fans have been encouraging people who donated to Warren’s campaign to ask for a refund; #RefundWarren started trending on Twitter on Tuesday. Meanwhile, some Warren supporters have been acting as if this simple misunderstanding is somehow part of the #MeToo moment and that if you don’t believe Warren then you don’t “believe women”. This is unhelpful and insulting.
Much of the mainstream media, meanwhile, has been fanning the flames of this supposed “fight” and reporting on the rift with incendiary headlines and apparent glee.
Ultimately, neither Sanders nor Warren will emerge out of this spat looking good. The only real winner is Joe Biden. He’s doing to his best to stay out of the news, as much as his gaffes will allow, and to maintain his frontrunner status. There are plenty of people out there who would love to see progressives eat themselves, thus ensuring Biden gets the nomination. Let’s not give those people the satisfaction of sabotaging ourselves, shall we?


theguardian--2020-01-14--Yes, Iranians can protest against both US intervention and their government | Reza Akbari

Protests erupted in Iran soon after the government admitted to having accidentally shot down a passenger plane killing 176 people .
That disaster took place amid escalating tensions with the US over the killing of Qassem Suleimani , head of the country ’ s powerful Quds force .
The crowds have called on their supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , to step down , and security forces have responded with teargas , rubber bullets and even live ammunition .
In one of the most visceral displays of anger so far , a young man climbed up a billboard depicting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top , he kicked the picture and eventually dragged it down .
The apparent shift in the public ’ s attitude towards its government has puzzled some observers .
Just a week ago , Iranians appeared to be united in mourning the loss of a revered general but today they are taking to the streets against the ruling elite .
In an attempt to explain the apparent contradiction , some have claimed that the mourning was inauthentic , regime propaganda that has been unquestioningly swallowed by western media .
In contrast , others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ real Iran ” , and represent the authentic face of the country .
According to Donald Trump , the Iranians who refused to step on an American flag painted at the entrance to a building were “ wonderful ” and their behaviour a sign of “ big progress ” .
So which is it ?
Is Iran a nation of people easily coerced into participating in pro-regime rallies or a country of brave souls willing to risk their lives for justice ?
Of course , the binary view of Iran that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The complex attitudes of protesters are surprising only to those who see the country as a monolith .
They have accepted the superficial caricature of a nation in which there can only be one national mood – a fickle place where shouts of “ Death to America ” are replaced with the anti-regime cry of “ Death to the Dictator ” overnight .
Today , Iran is a terrorist nation where the people mourn the death of a brutal regime general , and tomorrow they become stalwarts of democracy , putting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarian regime .
These one-dimensional interpretations are often the result of cherry-picking events in order to match whatever preconceived notions are held about the “ true ” nature of the country .
But that is no substitute for real understanding .
Although it might seem obvious , it ’ s worth restating that Iran is a diverse nation of more than 80 million people .
It has an intricate bureaucracy and various centres of political power .
The state and social forces seldom act in concert on any issue .
People have strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backgrounds .
No , not all of Iran was united in its grief for Suleimani , but not all of Iran is trying to topple the regime either .
The authorities have a history of holding state-sponsored rallies and boosting numbers at them by incentivising attendance , but to claim everyone who came out to mourn Suleimani was forced to do so is implausible .
Individuals who are protesting against the government are risking much more than those who attended state-sponsored memorials .
But why are we assuming that there is no overlap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended both .
This is because the demands of members of the public are many and varied .
Iranians are more than capable of condemning foreign threats against their sovereignty as well as the regime ’ s domestic repression .
Unfortunately , superficial readings of Iran , which prevent a realistic assessment of what ’ s going on , are fully embraced by members of the current US administration , convinced that their so-called maximum-pressure policy is working .
They continue to claim that the 2015 nuclear deal , rather than being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of escalation between the two countries .
In a nationally televised address from the White House on 8 January , President Trump blamed the former president , Barack Obama , for Iran ’ s missile attack against US bases , stating , “ The missiles fired ... at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.
” As the situation changed , the secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , was quick to side with anti-regime protesters , remarking , “ The voice of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this public unrest will weaken the Islamic Republic .
And while it is possible that the protests will create a crisis of legitimacy for the regime in the short run , banking on sustained “ economic pressure , diplomatic isolation and military deterrence ” to force the public to rise up and overthrow their masters would be a big misreading of the complex state-society dynamics in the country .
If US hawks view the trouble on the streets as a sign that their strategy is working and try to stoke it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranians who favour compromise and strengthening the hardliners who want to see more confrontation .
That the powerful are prepared to accept a monolithic picture of Iran is especially worrying at a time when open conflict seems more likely .
There is no analyst who can write about what all Iranians believe .
Think about how challenging it is gauging public opinion in western nations , let alone in a nation that has been isolated from the rest of the world for the past four decades .
Treating Iran like an analytical buffet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts that fit your agenda , is a recipe for misunderstanding with potentially fatal consequences .
• Reza Akbari is a programme manager at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting

Protests erupted in Iran soon after the government admitted to having accidentally shot down a passenger plane killing 176 people. That disaster took place amid escalating tensions with the US over the killing of Qassem Suleimani, head of the country’s powerful Quds force. The crowds have called on their supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to step down, and security forces have responded with teargas, rubber bullets and even live ammunition. In one of the most visceral displays of anger so far, a young man climbed up a billboard depicting Suleimani. After making it to the top, he kicked the picture and eventually dragged it down.
If US hawks view the trouble as a sign their strategy is working, they will weaken those Iranians who favour compromise
The apparent shift in the public’s attitude towards its government has puzzled some observers. Just a week ago, Iranians appeared to be united in mourning the loss of a revered general but today they are taking to the streets against the ruling elite. In an attempt to explain the apparent contradiction, some have claimed that the mourning was inauthentic, regime propaganda that has been unquestioningly swallowed by western media. In contrast, others argue that today’s protests are the “real Iran”, and represent the authentic face of the country. According to Donald Trump, the Iranians who refused to step on an American flag painted at the entrance to a building were “wonderful” and their behaviour a sign of “big progress”. So which is it? Is Iran a nation of people easily coerced into participating in pro-regime rallies or a country of brave souls willing to risk their lives for justice?
Of course, the binary view of Iran that underlies this bewilderment is misguided and reductive. The complex attitudes of protesters are surprising only to those who see the country as a monolith. They have accepted the superficial caricature of a nation in which there can only be one national mood – a fickle place where shouts of “Death to America” are replaced with the anti-regime cry of “Death to the Dictator” overnight. Today, Iran is a terrorist nation where the people mourn the death of a brutal regime general, and tomorrow they become stalwarts of democracy, putting their lives on the line to oppose their authoritarian regime. These one-dimensional interpretations are often the result of cherry-picking events in order to match whatever preconceived notions are held about the “true” nature of the country. But that is no substitute for real understanding.
Although it might seem obvious, it’s worth restating that Iran is a diverse nation of more than 80 million people. It has an intricate bureaucracy and various centres of political power. The state and social forces seldom act in concert on any issue. People have strong political opinions and a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. No, not all of Iran was united in its grief for Suleimani, but not all of Iran is trying to topple the regime either. The authorities have a history of holding state-sponsored rallies and boosting numbers at them by incentivising attendance, but to claim everyone who came out to mourn Suleimani was forced to do so is implausible. Individuals who are protesting against the government are risking much more than those who attended state-sponsored memorials. But why are we assuming that there is no overlap? There are reports of people who attended both. This is because the demands of members of the public are many and varied. Iranians are more than capable of condemning foreign threats against their sovereignty as well as the regime’s domestic repression.
Unfortunately, superficial readings of Iran, which prevent a realistic assessment of what’s going on, are fully embraced by members of the current US administration, convinced that their so-called maximum-pressure policy is working. They continue to claim that the 2015 nuclear deal, rather than being a considerable diplomatic achievement, started the cycle of escalation between the two countries. In a nationally televised address from the White House on 8 January, President Trump blamed the former president, Barack Obama, for Iran’s missile attack against US bases, stating, “The missiles fired ... at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”
As the situation changed, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, was quick to side with anti-regime protesters, remarking, “The voice of the Iranian people is clear.” He assumes that this public unrest will weaken the Islamic Republic. And while it is possible that the protests will create a crisis of legitimacy for the regime in the short run, banking on sustained “economic pressure, diplomatic isolation and military deterrence” to force the public to rise up and overthrow their masters would be a big misreading of the complex state-society dynamics in the country. If US hawks view the trouble on the streets as a sign that their strategy is working and try to stoke it, they will in fact be weakening those Iranians who favour compromise and strengthening the hardliners who want to see more confrontation.
That the powerful are prepared to accept a monolithic picture of Iran is especially worrying at a time when open conflict seems more likely. There is no analyst who can write about what all Iranians believe. Think about how challenging it is gauging public opinion in western nations, let alone in a nation that has been isolated from the rest of the world for the past four decades. Treating Iran like an analytical buffet table, choosing to accept only those facts that fit your agenda, is a recipe for misunderstanding with potentially fatal consequences.


theguardian--2020-01-14--The media's obsession with Iowa deepens the Democrats' whiteness problem | Jon Allsop

And then there were 12 .
On Monday , Cory Booker , the US senator from New Jersey , became the latest contender to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary .
The field is still very big , but it has narrowed in one meaningful sense : it was once historically diverse , but with Booker out , just three candidates of color remain , only one of whom , the former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick , is black .
Booker blamed the distraction of jury duty in President Trump ’ s impending Senate impeachment trial for his exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , exacerbated by his failure to qualify for recent Democratic debates , including tonight ’ s .
It will take place in Iowa , which is 91 % white .
Every single candidate on stage will be white , too .
As is ritual in campaign coverage , after Booker dropped out , reporters and pundits chewed over the reasons for his failure – among them , media obsessions with the campaign horse race ( Booker never really cut through in the polls ) , and with shiny new objects ( Exhibit A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think a big part of Booker ’ s problem , why he never had ‘ a moment , ’ was that he ’ d had so many moments before , ” Olivia Nuzzi , Washington correspondent at New York magazine , wrote on Twitter .
“ He ’ d been on magazine covers and the subject of glowing profiles since the mid-2000s .
The political media was overly familiar with Booker and voters weren ’ t familiar enough.
” Amid all the postmortems , we saw paeans to Booker ’ s personal decency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On MSNBC , Booker emphasized that tone in a valedictory interview with one of his media admirers ( and his old friend from Stanford ) , Rachel Maddow .
“ Uniting Americans to a larger purpose , ” he said , is his “ prayer ” for the Democratic party .
( Elsewhere on TV , Booker ’ s exit got buried under Elizabeth Warren ’ s allegation that Bernie Sanders told her , in 2018 , that a woman can ’ t win in 2020 – a claim Sanders strongly denies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , political pundits often find fighting more interesting than peace and love . )
Monday ’ s Booker coverage also re-upped conversations about the structure of the Democratic primary , and its effect on voters and candidates of color .
In recent weeks , Booker complained repeatedly that their perspectives have been excluded by the party ’ s current debate-qualification rules , which prioritize polling and fundraising .
Yesterday , pundits reiterated that critique , and there was renewed discussion , too , of Iowa ’ s place at the top of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disproportionate attention every four years .
“ The whiteness of [ the ] donor class and early states really matters , ” Astead W Herndon , a politics reporter for the New York Times , tweeted .
“ Their vision of electability impacts viability.
” These might look like conversations for the Democratic party , but they ’ re important for the media , too .
We could do much more to mitigate the distorting effects of imperfect democratic structures , and yet , too often , we reinforce and amplify them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one such distortion .
The concept is a hydra of conventional wisdom and internalized biases , and its predictive value is flimsy .
( See : Trump , Donald . )
And yet so many of our discussions about politics rest on it .
If you ’ ve listened to campaign reporters this cycle , you ’ ll have heard ample evidence – albeit anecdotal , for the most part – that many Democratic electors intend to vote not for their favored candidate , but for the one they think stands the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is integral in molding such judgments .
And yet , as Sawyer Hackett , a staffer on Julián Castro ’ s shuttered presidential campaign , told the Washington Post ’ s David Weigel last week , voters of color are underweighted in its calculus .
“ I have to believe that if newsrooms were more diverse we wouldn ’ t be stuck with this narrative that ’ s made voters think they ’ re choosing between their minds and hearts , ” Hackett said .
It ’ s not the news media ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – but it is our job to challenge assumptions that unfairly benefit some at the expense of others .
( Errin Haines , national writer on race and ethnicity at the Associated Press , put it best in a recent piece for Nieman Lab : “ Election coverage is about choices – of who gets seen and heard in our democracy.
” ) Similarly , it ’ s not the media ’ s job to change the primary calendar – but it is our job to ensure that issues pertaining to race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of substance , continue to shape the conversation , regardless of the demographics of the state that gets to vote first .
As the Times acknowledged back in September , as media focus started to turn in earnest toward Iowa ( five months before any actual voting ) , the state ’ s caucuses “ disenfranchise huge blocs of voters ” , and yet , “ to a greater degree than in recent campaigns , this unrepresentative and idiosyncratic state is proving that it is the only electoral battleground that matters for Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic , not eagerly indulging it .
And yet , as in so many cycles past , the Iowa feeding frenzy is kicking in again , to the exclusion of other issues , and voices , that matter .
Despite its homogeneous candidate lineup , tonight ’ s debate is an opportunity to be more inclusive .
Its moderators will bear a greater responsibility than usual to channel the perspectives and concerns of communities that don ’ t look like most of Iowa – and not just in a one-off question halfway through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noise around Sanders and Warren ’ s crumbling non-aggression pact , the temptation to center conflict , instead , will doubtless be strong .
• None Jon Allsop is a freelance journalist .
He writes CJR ’ s newsletter The Media Today • None This article was first published in the Columbia Journalism Review

And then there were 12. On Monday, Cory Booker, the US senator from New Jersey, became the latest contender to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary. The field is still very big, but it has narrowed in one meaningful sense: it was once historically diverse, but with Booker out, just three candidates of color remain, only one of whom, the former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, is black.
Booker blamed the distraction of jury duty in President Trump’s impending Senate impeachment trial for his exit, as well as his winnowing finances, exacerbated by his failure to qualify for recent Democratic debates, including tonight’s. It will take place in Iowa, which is 91% white. Every single candidate on stage will be white, too.
As is ritual in campaign coverage, after Booker dropped out, reporters and pundits chewed over the reasons for his failure – among them, media obsessions with the campaign horse race (Booker never really cut through in the polls), and with shiny new objects (Exhibit A: Pete Buttigieg).
“I think a big part of Booker’s problem, why he never had ‘a moment,’ was that he’d had so many moments before,” Olivia Nuzzi, Washington correspondent at New York magazine, wrote on Twitter. “He’d been on magazine covers and the subject of glowing profiles since the mid-2000s. The political media was overly familiar with Booker and voters weren’t familiar enough.”
Amid all the postmortems, we saw paeans to Booker’s personal decency and to his love-centered campaign rhetoric. On MSNBC, Booker emphasized that tone in a valedictory interview with one of his media admirers (and his old friend from Stanford), Rachel Maddow. “Uniting Americans to a larger purpose,” he said, is his “prayer” for the Democratic party. (Elsewhere on TV, Booker’s exit got buried under Elizabeth Warren’s allegation that Bernie Sanders told her, in 2018, that a woman can’t win in 2020 – a claim Sanders strongly denies. For all their avowed disapproval of division, political pundits often find fighting more interesting than peace and love.)
We could do much more to mitigate the distorting effects of imperfect democratic structures, and yet, too often, we reinforce and amplify them
Monday’s Booker coverage also re-upped conversations about the structure of the Democratic primary, and its effect on voters and candidates of color. In recent weeks, Booker complained repeatedly that their perspectives have been excluded by the party’s current debate-qualification rules, which prioritize polling and fundraising. Yesterday, pundits reiterated that critique, and there was renewed discussion, too, of Iowa’s place at the top of the primary calendar, which earns the state disproportionate attention every four years. “The whiteness of [the] donor class and early states really matters,” Astead W Herndon, a politics reporter for the New York Times, tweeted. “Their vision of electability impacts viability.”
These might look like conversations for the Democratic party, but they’re important for the media, too. We could do much more to mitigate the distorting effects of imperfect democratic structures, and yet, too often, we reinforce and amplify them. Our preoccupation with “electability” is one such distortion. The concept is a hydra of conventional wisdom and internalized biases, and its predictive value is flimsy. (See: Trump, Donald.) And yet so many of our discussions about politics rest on it. If you’ve listened to campaign reporters this cycle, you’ll have heard ample evidence – albeit anecdotal, for the most part – that many Democratic electors intend to vote not for their favored candidate, but for the one they think stands the best chance of beating Trump.
The press is integral in molding such judgments. And yet, as Sawyer Hackett, a staffer on Julián Castro’s shuttered presidential campaign, told the Washington Post’s David Weigel last week, voters of color are underweighted in its calculus. “I have to believe that if newsrooms were more diverse we wouldn’t be stuck with this narrative that’s made voters think they’re choosing between their minds and hearts,” Hackett said.
It’s not the news media’s job to advocate for given candidates – but it is our job to challenge assumptions that unfairly benefit some at the expense of others. (Errin Haines, national writer on race and ethnicity at the Associated Press, put it best in a recent piece for Nieman Lab: “Election coverage is about choices – of who gets seen and heard in our democracy.”) Similarly, it’s not the media’s job to change the primary calendar – but it is our job to ensure that issues pertaining to race, and its intersection with every other issue of substance, continue to shape the conversation, regardless of the demographics of the state that gets to vote first.
As the Times acknowledged back in September, as media focus started to turn in earnest toward Iowa (five months before any actual voting), the state’s caucuses “disenfranchise huge blocs of voters”, and yet, “to a greater degree than in recent campaigns, this unrepresentative and idiosyncratic state is proving that it is the only electoral battleground that matters for Democrats”. We should be counterbalancing that logic, not eagerly indulging it. And yet, as in so many cycles past, the Iowa feeding frenzy is kicking in again, to the exclusion of other issues, and voices, that matter.
Despite its homogeneous candidate lineup, tonight’s debate is an opportunity to be more inclusive. Its moderators will bear a greater responsibility than usual to channel the perspectives and concerns of communities that don’t look like most of Iowa – and not just in a one-off question halfway through the running order. Given all the noise around Sanders and Warren’s crumbling non-aggression pact, the temptation to center conflict, instead, will doubtless be strong.


theguardian--2020-01-15--‘We are still here’: Native Americans fight to be counted in US census

It was the largest rollback of federal lands protections in US history .
When President Donald Trump signed a 2017 executive order that reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante national monuments by nearly 2m acres , he said the move was supported in the state of Utah and by the local county where the monuments were located .
On the ground , however , that opposition didn ’ t add up .
San Juan county , Utah , is majority Native American and includes parts of the Navajo Nation ’ s and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protection of Bears Ears .
Through gerrymandering , the majority Native county maintained a majority white county commission , where Native views were outnumbered – until last year .
The Navajo Nation brought a lawsuit against San Juan accusing the county of racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 .
The tribe won .
The county was forced to redraw its election maps and in the fall of 2018 , for the first time ever , elected a majority Native commission .
The county commission now , officially , supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Navajo Nation is still fighting for political representation , but with a different tool : the US census , which will take place this year .
Without census data that proved the county ’ s election maps reduced the voting power of Native residents , the tribe would not have been able to win its suit .
Today , census data also determines tribal citizens ’ representation in Congress , state and county elections , and even the Nation ’ s own tribal council .
According to the US constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are to be counted every 10 years .
The final census count determines seats in Congress , election maps for local and state representatives and the allocation of over $ 900bn in annual federal spending for the next decade , including $ 5.6bn for tribal programs .
But despite the sprawling impact of the US census , Native Americans have historically been undercounted .
“ It impacts everything , ” Charlaine Tso told the Guardian by phone .
Tso represents District 9 on the Navajo Nation ’ s tribal council , the section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ [ The census ] is a domino effect .
It impacts education , roads and maintenance , elder care – funding for everything on our reservation.
” In her role as tribal councilor , Tso serves on the Navajo Nation ’ s Complete Count Commission for the 2020 census .
Despite being one of the largest tribes in the US , Navajos , Tso says the committee believes , were significantly undercounted in the 2010 census , which ended up lowering federal funding levels for the tribe .
“ We know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate .
That margin , imagine what difference it makes in federal funding.
” This problem is not unique to the Navajo Nation .
An estimated one in seven Native Americans living on tribal lands were not counted in the last US census , according to the bureau ’ s own audit .
Making Native Americans – at 2 % of the US population – the group most likely to be missed .
An estimated one in three Native people live in what the Census Bureau considers “ hard-to-count ” rural census tracts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lands .
In many states with high Native populations – including New Mexico , Arizona , Alaska and South Dakota – over half of Native residents live in such “ hard-to-count ” areas .
Other factors also disproportionately affect Native Americans , including poverty , housing insecurity , education and even age ( 42 % of Native Americans are under the age of 24 ) .
Desi Rodrigues-Lonebear , a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe and a demographer who served on the Census Bureau ’ s national advisory committee from 2013 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistrust .
“ It ’ s a hard sale , ” she told the Guardian .
“ You ’ re trying to convince people , your own relatives even , who for their whole lives wanted nothing else but to be left alone by the feds .
And you ’ re coming to them and saying but we really need you to fill out this form .
We really need you to count.
” Many tribal leaders and advocates are worried the undercount could be even worse in 2020 .
For the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted mostly online .
The move presents a unique challenge in Indian Country , where over a third of Native Americans living on tribal land lack access to broadband , making it the least connected part of the United States .
“ It [ the census ] moving online almost ensures an undercount of Native Americans of historic proportions , ” Natalie Landreth , a Chickasaw Nation member and an attorney for the Native American Rights Foundation ( Narf ) , told the Guardian .
Raising further alarm bells for Landreth , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Indian Country that would have been used to identify problems with messaging and on-the-ground rollout .
Funding for translation into Native languages also narrowed this year .
In the past , the bureau has funded translation services into multiple Indigenous languages , but this year is only funding Navajo , according to Narf .
“ There are census tracts in Alaska where 75 % of the households don ’ t speak English at home , ” says Landreth .
Narf has connected tribes in seven states to private dollars for language translation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not enough .
“ We have to do gap filling , which is a risky measure , ” she said .
“ We ’ re only going to be able to plug the dam in certain locations.
” According to Jessica Imotichey , a Chickasaw Nation member and a coordinator for the LA region of the US Census Bureau , the agency is working to ensure Native Americans are counted in 2020 .
“ [ The census ] is about representation , not just politically but also visibility , ” Imotichey said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Natives , that we are still here , that we still remain.
” In remote Alaska , the census will start three months early in January , where workers will travel to Alaskan Native villages to count residents in person .
Although only 0.02 % of the US population will be counted through this “ in person numeration ” , the majority of them will be Indigenous .
Still , nationally , funding for census outreach campaigns varies significantly by location .
While some states like California are planning to spend $ 187m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budgeted nothing .
Three of those states – Oklahoma , North Dakota and South Dakota – have significant Native populations .
New Mexico , along with Alaska , was the most undercounted state in 2010 , with some counties returning less than 50 % of census surveys .
According to NM Counts 2020 , just a 1 % undercount in 2020 could result in the loss of $ 750m in federal aid to the state .
In response , the state has budgeted $ 3.5m for outreach efforts .
Tso sits on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – an area larger than West Virginia .
The commission , one of the many regional committees working within New Mexico , has already met with US senators and regional Census Bureau representatives to discuss the unique challenges of counting their citizens .
The tribal government is looking to hire a sizable outreach team this spring , with an emphasis on hiring fluent Navajo speakers , according to Tso .
“ We have to do everything possible to count every Navajo , ” she says .

It was the largest rollback of federal lands protections in US history.
When President Donald Trump signed a 2017 executive order that reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante national monuments by nearly 2m acres, he said the move was supported in the state of Utah and by the local county where the monuments were located.
On the ground, however, that opposition didn’t add up.
San Juan county, Utah, is majority Native American and includes parts of the Navajo Nation’s and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s reservations – both tribes officially support the protection of Bears Ears. Through gerrymandering, the majority Native county maintained a majority white county commission, where Native views were outnumbered – until last year.
The Navajo Nation brought a lawsuit against San Juan accusing the county of racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The tribe won. The county was forced to redraw its election maps and in the fall of 2018, for the first time ever, elected a majority Native commission. The county commission now, officially, supports the protection of Bears Ears.
Brandon Nez lives in San Juan county in Utah. The county has been accused of racial gerrymandering. Photograph: Rick Bowmer/Associated Press
Today, the Navajo Nation is still fighting for political representation, but with a different tool: the US census, which will take place this year. Without census data that proved the county’s election maps reduced the voting power of Native residents, the tribe would not have been able to win its suit. Today, census data also determines tribal citizens’ representation in Congress, state and county elections, and even the Nation’s own tribal council.
According to the US constitution, all residents living in the United States are to be counted every 10 years. The final census count determines seats in Congress, election maps for local and state representatives and the allocation of over $900bn in annual federal spending for the next decade, including $5.6bn for tribal programs. But despite the sprawling impact of the US census, Native Americans have historically been undercounted.
“It impacts everything,” Charlaine Tso told the Guardian by phone. Tso represents District 9 on the Navajo Nation’s tribal council, the section of the reservation in San Juan county. “[The census] is a domino effect. It impacts education, roads and maintenance, elder care – funding for everything on our reservation.”
In her role as tribal councilor, Tso serves on the Navajo Nation’s Complete Count Commission for the 2020 census. Despite being one of the largest tribes in the US, Navajos, Tso says the committee believes, were significantly undercounted in the 2010 census, which ended up lowering federal funding levels for the tribe. “We know for sure that it was nowhere near accurate. That margin, imagine what difference it makes in federal funding.”
Melissa Brown, part Navajo, lives in Window Rock, Arizona. An estimated one in seven Native Americans were not counted in the last US census. Photograph: Delia Johnson/Associated Press
This problem is not unique to the Navajo Nation. An estimated one in seven Native Americans living on tribal lands were not counted in the last US census, according to the bureau’s own audit. Making Native Americans – at 2% of the US population – the group most likely to be missed.
An estimated one in three Native people live in what the Census Bureau considers “hard-to-count” rural census tracts, representing 80% of all tribal lands. In many states with high Native populations – including New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and South Dakota – over half of Native residents live in such “hard-to-count” areas.
Other factors also disproportionately affect Native Americans, including poverty, housing insecurity, education and even age (42% of Native Americans are under the age of 24).
Desi Rodrigues-Lonebear, a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe and a demographer who served on the Census Bureau’s national advisory committee from 2013 to 2019, says another big factor is mistrust.
“It’s a hard sale,” she told the Guardian. “You’re trying to convince people, your own relatives even, who for their whole lives wanted nothing else but to be left alone by the feds. And you’re coming to them and saying but we really need you to fill out this form. We really need you to count.”
Eleanor Peshlakai prepares dinner in her home on the Navajo Nation reservation in Black Falls, Arizona. Photograph: Brian Leddy/The Guardian
Many tribal leaders and advocates are worried the undercount could be even worse in 2020. For the first time ever, the census will be conducted mostly online. The move presents a unique challenge in Indian Country, where over a third of Native Americans living on tribal land lack access to broadband, making it the least connected part of the United States.
“It [the census] moving online almost ensures an undercount of Native Americans of historic proportions,” Natalie Landreth, a Chickasaw Nation member and an attorney for the Native American Rights Foundation (Narf), told the Guardian.
Raising further alarm bells for Landreth, the Census Bureau canceled two field tests planned for Indian Country that would have been used to identify problems with messaging and on-the-ground rollout.
Funding for translation into Native languages also narrowed this year. In the past, the bureau has funded translation services into multiple Indigenous languages, but this year is only funding Navajo, according to Narf. “There are census tracts in Alaska where 75% of the households don’t speak English at home,” says Landreth.
Narf has connected tribes in seven states to private dollars for language translation services, but Landreth worries it’s not enough. “We have to do gap filling, which is a risky measure,” she said. “We’re only going to be able to plug the dam in certain locations.”
According to Jessica Imotichey, a Chickasaw Nation member and a coordinator for the LA region of the US Census Bureau, the agency is working to ensure Native Americans are counted in 2020. “[The census] is about representation, not just politically but also visibility,” Imotichey said. “Recognizing Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, that we are still here, that we still remain.”
A couple drives through the streets on their ATV in Kivalina, Alaska, a Native coastal village where there are few vehicles. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
In remote Alaska, the census will start three months early in January, where workers will travel to Alaskan Native villages to count residents in person. Although only 0.02% of the US population will be counted through this “in person numeration”, the majority of them will be Indigenous.
Still, nationally, funding for census outreach campaigns varies significantly by location. While some states like California are planning to spend $187m on census outreach, 24 states have budgeted nothing. Three of those states – Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota – have significant Native populations.
New Mexico, along with Alaska, was the most undercounted state in 2010, with some counties returning less than 50% of census surveys. According to NM Counts 2020, just a 1% undercount in 2020 could result in the loss of $750m in federal aid to the state. In response, the state has budgeted $3.5m for outreach efforts.
Tso sits on a Complete Count Commission for the Navajo Nation – an area larger than West Virginia. The commission, one of the many regional committees working within New Mexico, has already met with US senators and regional Census Bureau representatives to discuss the unique challenges of counting their citizens. The tribal government is looking to hire a sizable outreach team this spring, with an emphasis on hiring fluent Navajo speakers, according to Tso.
“We have to do everything possible to count every Navajo,” she says.


theguardian--2020-01-15--The handshake that wasn't: Warren-Sanders alliance tested in debate

Two candidates , both alike in dignity/ In fair Iowa , where we lay our scene/ From ancient truce break to new mutiny .
The Shakespearean schism between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , two longtime friends and colleagues , widened on Tuesday following several tense exchanges at the Democratic debate .
Afterward , Sanders outstretched his hand .
Warren snatched hers away – signaling what could be the end of what was , until recently , a solid truce .
The night began cordially , despite increasingly bitter exchanges between the two liberal candidates over the past few days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before settling behind their respective podiums .
But about 45 minutes into the debate , the CNN moderator Abby Phillip released what was simmering under the surface , asking Sanders to respond to the report that he told Warren he did not think a female candidate could win in 2020 .
“ Well , as a matter of fact , I didn ’ t say it , ” Sanders said , implying that Warren , who confirmed the report , was lying .
Phillip cheekily asked Warren what she thought “ when Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the election ” .
“ I disagreed , ” Warren said .
She pointed out that she was the only candidate on stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican in the past 30 years .
“ Look at the men on the stage – collectively they ’ ve lost 10 elections , ” she added .
“ The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women .
Amy and me , ” referring to senator Klobuchar .
Until now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any substantial manner , but on Tuesday , she concluded the debate by promising to become “ the first woman president of the United States of America ” .
Mid-debate , the Massachusetts senator did attempt to de-escalate .
“ Bernie is my friend , and I ’ m not here to fight with Bernie , ” she said .
But fight they did : including about whether the year 1990 is inclusive of “ the past 30 years ” , after Sanders pointed out that he beat a Republican incumbent that year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to criticize each other on the trail .
Finding themselves neck-and-neck in Iowa polls , both appear to have sharpened their barbs .
On Saturday night , Politico reported that a Sanders campaign script provided to volunteers instructed them to go negative on Warren , which reportedly read : “ I like Elizabeth Warren .
[ optional ] .
In fact , she ’ s my second choice .
But here ’ s my concern about her .
The people who support her are highly-educated , more affluent people who are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter what .
She ’ s bringing no new bases into the Democratic party .
We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we ’ re going to beat Trump.
” Sanders ’ campaign denied any intention to drag Warren .
Still , the truce was broken .
“ I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me , ” Warren told reporters after a Sunday town hall in Iowa .
On Monday night , Warren released a statement confirming a report from CNN ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 meeting – before either had declared their candidacy – that he believed a woman couldn ’ t win in 2020 .
Sanders and his campaign have repeatedly denied that he said such a thing .
After Warren rebuffed Sanders ’ handshake on Tuesday night , the two candidates appeared to exchange a few more terse words .
Tom Steyer , awkwardly caught between the two , quickly removed himself from the situation .
“ Goodnight , I ’ m out of here , ” the billionaire activist told reporters afterwards .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to move on as fast as possible.
” Many progressive supporters , concerned that infighting could boost up moderate candidates like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg , have urged liberals to make like Steyer and back away from the drama .
Julian Brave NoiseCat , Guardian contributor and strategist at the thinktank Data for Progress , lamented the cycle of “ partisans yelling at each other through the internet about who didn ’ t shake whose hand ” .
Before the debate , Varshini Prakash , the director of the progressive Sunrise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an analogy : “ Mom and dad are fighting and all I wan na do is go to my room and put my headphones on .
”

Two candidates, both alike in dignity/ In fair Iowa, where we lay our scene/ From ancient truce break to new mutiny.
The Shakespearean schism between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, two longtime friends and colleagues, widened on Tuesday following several tense exchanges at the Democratic debate. Afterward, Sanders outstretched his hand. Warren snatched hers away – signaling what could be the end of what was, until recently, a solid truce.
The night began cordially, despite increasingly bitter exchanges between the two liberal candidates over the past few days. Sanders and Warren even shook hands before settling behind their respective podiums.
But about 45 minutes into the debate, the CNN moderator Abby Phillip released what was simmering under the surface, asking Sanders to respond to the report that he told Warren he did not think a female candidate could win in 2020.
“Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it,” Sanders said, implying that Warren, who confirmed the report, was lying.
Phillip cheekily asked Warren what she thought “when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election”.
“I disagreed,” Warren said. She pointed out that she was the only candidate on stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican in the past 30 years. “Look at the men on the stage – collectively they’ve lost 10 elections,” she added.
“The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. Amy and me,” she said, referring to senator Klobuchar. Until now, Warren had largely avoided discussing gender in any substantial manner, but on Tuesday, she concluded the debate by promising to become “the first woman president of the United States of America”.
Mid-debate, the Massachusetts senator did attempt to de-escalate. “Bernie is my friend, and I’m not here to fight with Bernie,” she said. But fight they did: including about whether the year 1990 is inclusive of “the past 30 years”, after Sanders pointed out that he beat a Republican incumbent that year.
The two candidates have until recently refused to criticize each other on the trail. Finding themselves neck-and-neck in Iowa polls, both appear to have sharpened their barbs.
This video has been removed. This could be because it launched early, our rights have expired, there was a legal issue, or for another reason. Elizabeth Warren rebukes Bernie Sanders: 'A woman can win the presidency' – video
On Saturday night, Politico reported that a Sanders campaign script provided to volunteers instructed them to go negative on Warren, which reportedly read: “I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]. In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her. The people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what. She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to beat Trump.”
Sanders’ campaign denied any intention to drag Warren. Still, the truce was broken.
“I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me,” Warren told reporters after a Sunday town hall in Iowa.
On Monday night, Warren released a statement confirming a report from CNN that Sanders told her at a private 2018 meeting – before either had declared their candidacy – that he believed a woman couldn’t win in 2020. Sanders and his campaign have repeatedly denied that he said this.
After Warren rebuffed Sanders’ handshake on Tuesday night, the two candidates appeared to exchange a few more terse words. Tom Steyer, awkwardly caught between the two, quickly removed himself from the situation. “Goodnight, I’m out of here,” the billionaire activist told reporters afterwards. “I felt like, OK, I need to move on as fast as possible.”
A lip-reading of what they said to each other after the debate:
WARREN: "Hey Bernie, how are you? Sorry, I have a cold, don't shake my hand."
BERNIE: "Doin' great, Liz. Hope the kids are good!"
WARREN: "They are. I like your suit! You chose it well."
BERNIE: "Thanks, Liz." — The Gravel Institute (@GravelInstitute) January 15, 2020
Many progressive supporters, concerned that infighting could boost up moderate candidates like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, have urged liberals to make like Steyer and back away from the drama.
Julian Brave NoiseCat, Guardian contributor and strategist at the thinktank Data for Progress, lamented the cycle of “partisans yelling at each other through the internet about who didn’t shake whose hand”.
Before the debate, Varshini Prakash, the director of the progressive Sunrise movement, summed up the ickiness with an analogy: “Mom and dad are fighting and all I wanna do is go to my room and put my headphones on.”