theguardian--2020-12-02--Barack Obama criticizes 'Defund the Police' slogan but faces backlash

Barack Obama chastised Democratic political candidates for using “ snappy ” slogans like “ defund the police ” that he argued could turn voters away , in an interview released this week .
“ You lost a big audience the minute you say it , which makes it a lot less likely that you ’ re actually going to get the changes you want done , ” the former president told show host Peter Hamby in an interview with Good Luck America , a Snapchat political show .
“ The key is deciding , do you want to actually get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel good among the people you already agree with ?
” Obama added .
However , Obama also defended the place of young progressives as important “ new blood ” in the Democratic party , singling out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – who has spoken out strongly on the phrase and the essence of defunding police departments to boost social spending .
Former Obama campaign operative Ben LaBolt shared part of the president ’ s interview with Hamby online on Tuesday before the full interview went live on Snapchat on Wednesday .
The remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive Democrats – including the Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota , who stressed “ defund the police ” was not about mere words but a “ demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country ” .
“ We didn ’ t lose Breonna because of a ‘ slogan ’ , ” said Kentucky state representative Charles Booker , referencing Breonna Taylor , the Black , Louisville woman who was shot dead in her own apartment by police in March during a botched raid .
Booker broke barriers in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected to the Kentucky state legislature in nearly a century .
And he ran a close contest for the Democratic nomination to challenge – ultimately unsuccessfully – the Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell ’ s seat in the November election .
Cori Bush , who made history last month by becoming the first Black woman elected to represent Missouri in Congress shot back at Obama that “ Defund the Police ” was “ not a slogan .
It ’ s a mandate for keeping [ Black ] people alive.
” “ With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s talk about losing people , ” she said .
“ We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor .
We ’ re losing our loved ones to police violence.
” The Black Lives Matter movement member ’ s rise in politics stemmed from her work as a community activist during protests against the shooting death of Mike Brown in Ferguson in 2014 .
Bush is also the only candidate to formally run on a platform of defunding the police – a point many analysts say make criticism of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a widely used phrase and policy initiative that gained traction over the summer as racial justice and anti-policing protests erupted in response to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in May .
As a policy initiative , defunding police departments involves the reallocation of local and state resources away from law enforcement into public services , designed to address issues of poverty , inequality and mental health – factors that contribute to crime .
The former president ’ s comments echoed other moderate Democrats who have taken issue and consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a progressive movement led by what some have called radical messaging .
In South Carolina , where the Democratic base is largely composed of Black Americans who skew older and moderate , the Democratic incumbent Joe Cunningham lost his House seat to Republican Nancy Mace in the November election .
In the days following , the South Carolina congressman and House minority whip James Clyburn , who was regarded as instrumental in turning around Joe Biden ’ s flagging campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination when the moderate was behind leftist champion Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt some Democratic candidates .
“ If you instead say ‘ Let ’ s reform the police department so that everybody ’ s being treated fairly , ’ ” Clyburn offered alternatively .
“ Not just in policing , but in sentencing , how can we divert young people from getting into crime ?
’ ” While Obama took issue with progressive slogans , he also criticized moderate leadership for failing to recognize the increasingly powerful influence of young , progressives such as Ocasio-Cortez .
The former president chastised the Democratic National Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their opening montage during their national convention in Milwaukee in August .
“ She speaks to a broad section of young people who are interested in what she has to say , even if they don ’ t agree with everything she says .
You give her a platform , ” he said , adding that across political ideologies “ new blood is always good ” for the party .

Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletter
Barack Obama chastised Democratic political candidates for using “snappy” slogans like “defund the police” that he argued could turn voters away, in an interview released this week.
“You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done,” the former president told show host Peter Hamby in an interview with Good Luck America, a Snapchat political show.
“The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” Obama added.
However, Obama also defended the place of young progressives as important “new blood” in the Democratic party, singling out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – who has spoken out strongly on the phrase and the essence of defunding police departments to boost social spending.
06:54 What does it mean to defund the police? – video
Former Obama campaign operative Ben LaBolt shared part of the president’s interview with Hamby online on Tuesday before the full interview went live on Snapchat on Wednesday.
President Obama, about the best message architect there is, suggests a thoughtful alternative to "Defund." Via @PeterHamby. https://t.co/ai64FDPgTI pic.twitter.com/UABXL5yLmr — Ben LaBolt (@BenLaBolt) December 2, 2020
The remarks drew immediate backlash from notable, Black progressive Democrats – including the Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who stressed “defund the police” was not about mere words but a “demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country”.
We lose people in the hands of police. It’s not a slogan but a policy demand. And centering the demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country gets us progress and safety. https://t.co/Vu6inw4ms7 — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) December 2, 2020
“We didn’t lose Breonna because of a ‘slogan’,” said Kentucky state representative Charles Booker, referencing Breonna Taylor, the Black, Louisville woman who was shot dead in her own apartment by police in March during a botched raid.
Booker broke barriers in 2018 when he became the youngest Black lawmaker elected to the Kentucky state legislature in nearly a century. And he ran a close contest for the Democratic nomination to challenge – ultimately unsuccessfully – the Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s seat in the November election.
We didn’t lose Breonna because of a slogan.
Instead of conceding this narrative, let’s shape our own. It’s time we listen to the people, organize and build coalitions around our own message, and cast a vision that inspires us all to lead for change at the ballot box and beyond. https://t.co/mBg7wanaR6 — Charles Booker (@Booker4KY) December 2, 2020
Cori Bush, who made history last month by becoming the first Black woman elected to represent Missouri in Congress shot back at Obama that “Defund the Police” was “not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping [Black] people alive.”
“With all due respect, Mr President – let’s talk about losing people,” she said. “We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor. We’re losing our loved ones to police violence.”
The Black Lives Matter movement member’s rise in politics stemmed from her work as a community activist during protests against the shooting death of Mike Brown in Ferguson in 2014.
Bush is also the only candidate to formally run on a platform of defunding the police – a point many analysts say make criticism of the movement unwarranted.
Defund the Police has been a widely used phrase and policy initiative that gained traction over the summer as racial justice and anti-policing protests erupted in response to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in May.
As a policy initiative, defunding police departments involves the reallocation of local and state resources away from law enforcement into public services, designed to address issues of poverty, inequality and mental health – factors that contribute to crime.
The former president’s comments echoed other moderate Democrats who have taken issue and consider the phrase polarizing, prompting criticism of a progressive movement led by what some have called radical messaging.
Damn, Mr. President.
Didn’t you say “Trayvon could’ve been my son?”
In 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was too much.
In 2016, Kaepernick was too much.
Today, discussing police budgets is too much.
The problem is America's comfort with Black death -- not discomfort with slogans. https://t.co/DJUSZebgW5 — Jamaal Bowman (@JamaalBowmanNY) December 2, 2020
In South Carolina, where the Democratic base is largely composed of Black Americans who skew older and moderate, the Democratic incumbent Joe Cunningham lost his House seat to Republican Nancy Mace in the November election.
In the days following, the South Carolina congressman and House minority whip James Clyburn, who was regarded as instrumental in turning around Joe Biden’s flagging campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination when the moderate was behind leftist champion Bernie Sanders, told NBC News the slogan hurt some Democratic candidates.
“If you instead say ‘Let’s reform the police department so that everybody’s being treated fairly,’” Clyburn offered alternatively. “Not just in policing, but in sentencing, how can we divert young people from getting into crime?’”
While Obama took issue with progressive slogans, he also criticized moderate leadership for failing to recognize the increasingly powerful influence of young, progressives such as Ocasio-Cortez.
The former president chastised the Democratic National Committee for only briefly featuring such democratic socialists in their opening montage during their national convention in Milwaukee in August.
“She speaks to a broad section of young people who are interested in what she has to say, even if they don’t agree with everything she says. You give her a platform,” he said, adding that across political ideologies “new blood is always good” for the party.


theguardian--2020-12-02--Dear President Trump: election officials are facing death threats on your watch | Gabriel Sterling

On Tuesday , a Republican senior election official in Georgia , Gabriel Sterling , gave an emotional and scathing press conference in which he described death threats and abuse he and others affiliated with counting the presidential vote in Georgia have endured .
Sterling called out Donald Trump and other Republicans for stoking conspiracy theories about the election and encouraging an atmosphere of intimidation against people trying to do their jobs .
Here is a transcript of his public remarks : I ’ m going to do my best to keep it together because it all gone too far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attorney for the Trump campaign ] today asked for Chris Krebs , a patriot who ran [ the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ] , to be shot .
A twentysomething [ voting technician ] in Gwinnett county today has death threats and a noose put out saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from a [ voting machine ] to a county computer so he could read it .
It has to stop .
Mr President , you have not condemned these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have not condemned this language or these actions .
This has to stop .
We need you to step up , and if you ’ re going to take a position of leadership , show some .
My boss , [ Georgia secretary of state Brad ] Raffensperger , his address is out there .
They have people doing caravans in front of their house .
They ’ ve had people come on to their property .
Tricia , his wife of 40 years , is getting sexualized threats through her cellphone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is elections .
This is the backbone of democracy , and all of you who have not said a damn word are complicit in this .
It ’ s too much .
Yes , fight for every legal vote .
Go through your due process .
We encourage you .
Use your first amendment .
That ’ s fine .
Death threats , physical threats , intimidation , it ’ s too much .
It ’ s not right .
They ’ ve lost the moral high ground to claim that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best words to do this because I ’ m angry .
And the straw that broke the camel ’ s back today is , again , this 20-year-old contractor for a voting-system company just trying to do his job … in fact , I talked to Dominion [ a voting system company ] today , and they said he ’ s one of the better ones they ’ ve got .
His family ’ s getting harassed now .
There ’ s a noose out there with his name on it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve got police protection outside my house .
Fine .
You know , I took a higher-profile job .
I get it .
Secretary ran for office .
His wife knew that too .
This kid took a job .
He just took a job .
It ’ s just wrong .
I can ’ t begin to explain the level of anger I have right now over this .
And every American , every Georgian , Republican and Democrat alike , should have that same level of anger .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely lost the state of Georgia .
We ’ re investigating , there ’ s always a possibility , I get it .
You have the rights to go to the courts .
What you don ’ t have the ability to do – and you need to step up and say this – is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence .
Someone is going to get hurt , someone is going to get shot , someone is going to get killed , and it ’ s not right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this is wrong .
DiGenova , who said for Chris Krebs to get shot , is a former US attorney .
He knows better .
The people around the president know better .
Mr President , as the secretary said yesterday , people aren ’ t giving you the best advice of what ’ s actually going on on the ground .
It ’ s time to look forward .
If you want to run for re-election in four years , fine – do it .
But everything we ’ re seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path .
Be the bigger man here , and step in .
Tell your supporters : “ Don ’ t be violent .
Don ’ t intimidate.
” All that ’ s wrong .
It ’ s un-American .

On Tuesday, a Republican senior election official in Georgia, Gabriel Sterling, gave an emotional and scathing press conference in which he described death threats and abuse he and others affiliated with counting the presidential vote in Georgia have endured. Sterling called out Donald Trump and other Republicans for stoking conspiracy theories about the election and encouraging an atmosphere of intimidation against people trying to do their jobs.
Here is a transcript of his public remarks:
I’m going to do my best to keep it together because it all gone too far, all of it. Joe diGenova [an attorney for the Trump campaign] today asked for Chris Krebs, a patriot who ran [the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency], to be shot. A twentysomething [voting technician] in Gwinnett county today has death threats and a noose put out saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from a [voting machine] to a county computer so he could read it. It has to stop.
Mr President, you have not condemned these actions or this language. Senators, you have not condemned this language or these actions. This has to stop. We need you to step up, and if you’re going to take a position of leadership, show some.
My boss, [Georgia secretary of state Brad] Raffensperger, his address is out there. They have people doing caravans in front of their house. They’ve had people come on to their property. Tricia, his wife of 40 years, is getting sexualized threats through her cellphone. It has to stop.
This is elections. This is the backbone of democracy, and all of you who have not said a damn word are complicit in this. It’s too much. Yes, fight for every legal vote. Go through your due process. We encourage you. Use your first amendment. That’s fine.
Death threats, physical threats, intimidation, it’s too much. It’s not right. They’ve lost the moral high ground to claim that it is.
I don’t have all the best words to do this because I’m angry. And the straw that broke the camel’s back today is, again, this 20-year-old contractor for a voting-system company just trying to do his job … in fact, I talked to Dominion [a voting system company] today, and they said he’s one of the better ones they’ve got. His family’s getting harassed now. There’s a noose out there with his name on it, and it’s just not right.
I’ve got police protection outside my house. Fine. You know, I took a higher-profile job. I get it. Secretary ran for office. His wife knew that too. This kid took a job. He just took a job. It’s just wrong. I can’t begin to explain the level of anger I have right now over this. And every American, every Georgian, Republican and Democrat alike, should have that same level of anger.
Mr President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We’re investigating, there’s always a possibility, I get it. You have the rights to go to the courts. What you don’t have the ability to do – and you need to step up and say this – is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed, and it’s not right. It’s not right … all of this is wrong.
DiGenova, who said for Chris Krebs to get shot, is a former US attorney. He knows better. The people around the president know better. Mr President, as the secretary said yesterday, people aren’t giving you the best advice of what’s actually going on on the ground. It’s time to look forward. If you want to run for re-election in four years, fine – do it. But everything we’re seeing right now, there’s not a path. Be the bigger man here, and step in. Tell your supporters: “Don’t be violent. Don’t intimidate.” All that’s wrong. It’s un-American.


theguardian--2020-12-03--Joe Biden warns of 250,000 further Covid deaths 'between now and January' – video

President-elect Joe Biden has warned there may be 250,000 further deaths due to Covid-19 between 'now and January ' .
@ @ @ @ @ virtual event on the economic impact of Covid-19 , with Biden stressing the importance of @ @ @ @ @ .
'We 're likely to lose another 250,000 people dead between now and January , @ @ @ @ @ hear me ?
Because people are n't paying attention' • Covid deaths at highest level @ @ @ @ @ to 'fight like hell ' for US investment – live • Coronavirus live news : @ @ @ @ @ Covid complications ; global deaths near 1.5m

President-elect Joe Biden has warned there may be 250,000 further deaths due to Covid-19 between 'now and January'.
The warning came in a virtual event on the economic impact of Covid-19, with Biden stressing the importance of remaining vigilant during the holidays.
'We're likely to lose another 250,000 people dead between now and January,' Biden said. 'You hear me? Because people aren't paying attention'


theguardian--2020-12-03--From Martha Washington to Melania Trump: 250 years of first lady portraiture

Bess Truman , US first lady from 1945 until 1953 , has not become the sort of historical figure people quote on Instagram .
“ A woman ’ s public role is to sit beside her husband , be silent , and be sure her hat is on straight , ” she said , even though , behind the scenes , she was nicknamed “ the Boss ” and wrote many of President Truman ’ s speeches .
Such anecdotes permeate Every Eye Is on Me , a new exhibition of first lady portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the role from the early 19th century to the present .
The portraits , which range from Martha Washington ’ s detached stare and stiff white bonnet to Melania Trump ’ s soft-focus smise , aim to examine “ the way these women were framed ” .
The show is also part of an effort “ to help rectify the absences of women in US history , ” according to its curator , Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw .
• None Louisa Adams by Charles Robert Leslie , 1816 , and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we would be talking about first spouses , of course , but so far , alas , the US president has always been a man , with a first lady beside him .
The position was born of what we might now describe as emotional labour , too .
In the early 19th century , says DuBois Shaw , “ propriety dictated that a woman be present , as a hostess , if it was a mixed gathering of people ” .
If no wife was available first daughters , and first female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first ladies were often very ambitious .
“ I was struck by how many of these women were smarter than their husbands , ” says DuBois Shaw , “ but , because of women ’ s secondary position , had to attach themselves to a man who could take them where they wanted from to go.
” Mary Lincoln , for example , “ was very interested in politics .
But she can ’ t run so she finds a guy who also wants to go places and tries to partner with him.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course .
Being opinionated and outspoken , says DuBois Shaw “ she was constantly thwarted by sexism .
She develops a reputation as being a difficult woman.
” The question of whether the first lady should verbalise her opinions has reverberated through the ages .
Eleanor Roosevelt , for example , had a newspaper column , a weekly radio address and published more than 40 books over her lifetime .
Her portrait , in which she is theatrically lit like a screwball heroine , and symbolically holds a pencil , brings this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amazing writer , a woman who found her voice in middle age , and was very active , travelling places her husband couldn ’ t after contracting polio ” , says DuBois Shaw .
As a tireless social justice activist , often expressing more radical political views than her husband , her outspokenness made her a polarising figure .
If Eleanor Roosevelt represents the years , during her tenure of 1933 until 1945 , when many women ’ s lives changed dramatically as they entered the workforce as part of the war effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thousand words about the 1950s backlash .
In a candyfloss-coloured dress with matching opera gloves and a clutch bag , Mrs Eisenhower , “ is an example of the homemaker in chief ” , says DuBois Shaw .
“ She is all about wearing the Dior New Look , with cinched waists and full skirts , and putting pink doilies all over the White House .
She is kind of a regressive antidote to the liberated work-empowered women that had come out of the war years ; it ’ s a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She models that for working-class and middle-class white women .
A shade called Mamie pink became really popular in fashion in the 1950s.
” All the portraits illustrate something unique about each of the sitters and their approach to the role .
Jacqueline Kennedy ’ s Time magazine cover , for example , speaks of the growing prominence of the role as a political celebrity .
She stands in front of the White House portico , with a baby ’ s pram on the balcony .
“ It ’ s a really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young family she brought to the White House .
She is the future.
” It also foreshadows the unimaginable tragedy she would soon face when her third baby died two days after he was born , just months before her husband was assassinated .
Betty Ford ’ s steadfast bouffant , meanwhile , is represented in oils .
During the course of her research , DuBois Shaw says Ford became “ my new favourite ” .
During her time as first lady , she spoke openly about many taboo issues , notably breast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , she talked about her addiction to prescription painkillers and alcohol , and then memorably launched the Betty Ford clinic .
“ She initiated a national acceptance of addiction as a disease that is treatable , not shameful , not a moral failing , ” says DuBois Shaw .
“ We have Betty Ford to thank for that.
” But while many first ladies have achieved extraordinary things , within the confines of this unpaid and unelected role , many more have been unsure how to use their power and prominence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shaw , had a “ complicated ” relationship with the position .
“ She was very unhappy about being put into this role because it confined her ; she complained to her friends in letters that she hadn ’ t been able to go anywhere or do anything since her husband had been president.
” This was before the role was , to some extent , regularised by Edith Roosevelt , who established offices in the East Wing and hired a social secretary in 1902 .
Over the ensuing decades , a retinue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first lady to meet the expectations of the public ” .
Still , over 250 years , there is no satisfactory answer to the question of exactly what a first lady should be .
And perhaps that is appropriate : until there are more women in office , and there are routinely first gentlemen too , the role of first lady , and its assumed continuation of a gendered division of power , must remain uncomfortable .
Uncomfortable is certainly the sense you get from Mrs Trump , who publicly wears the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gilded cage with an orange narcissist .
A secret recording of her frustrations with the role was recently leaked , in which she complained about the public perception of her as “ complicit ” in her husband ’ s cruel immigration policies and the thankless months she had spent on the White House ’ s festive decorations with the immortal line : “ Who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff ?
” At least later first ladies have had the chance to create their own images .
Since 2006 , first lady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Portrait Gallery , along with its long-running collection of presidential portraits .
Hillary Clinton was the first , captured in side-profile , by Ginny Stanford , looking composed and regal , like the head of a coin , flanked by gold leaf panels , and wearing a hopeful shade of buttercup yellow .
It is a rather poignant image , given what happened later of which , DuBois Shaw believes , the role of first lady played its part .
“ Much of the animosity towards her begins when she does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way that the sexist powers-that-be would have it.
” Michelle Obama ’ s 2018 portrait , by Amy Sherald , reflects her openness and interest in contemporary art as well as her understanding of the power of her endorsements .
Sherald and Kehinde Wiley , who painted Barack Obama ’ s portrait around at the same time , were the first black recipients of commissions from the National Portrait Gallery .
There was some controversy when the portrait was released because Obama ’ s skin was represented in greyscale , which Sherald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ to exclude the idea of colour as race ” .
Obama was open to working with an artist with her own very strong ideas about how the finished portrait would look , says DuBois Shaw .
The dress she wears , designed by Michelle Smith , was also thoughtfully chosen .
Its patterns are reminiscent of “ patterns and designs commonly found in American quilting , particularly African American quilting traditions , and references the history of women ’ s needlework and American folk art , and that was something Mrs Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shaw .
It will be the Trumps ’ turn to be captured next for their exit portraits if , please God , they concede and vacate office ( a process on which , sadly , DuBois Shaw would not comment ) .
Until then , the White House provided Mrs Trump ’ s official photograph , for the exhibition .
The current first lady ’ s razor-sharp jawline , tonged hair and HD eyebrows present a level of grooming that would have been alien to first ladies of yore .
It is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a model , so she really understands the camera and knows exactly how she wants to look .
I think it reflects the desire she may have had – going into the White House back in 2017 – to present a composed and straightforward image of herself , ” says DuBois Shaw .
Given that Mrs Trump has played close to a nonspeaking role over the past four years , the choices she makes for her official portrait , when it is released , will be worth a thousand words , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of the exhibition can be accessed here .

Bess Truman, US first lady from 1945 until 1953, has not become the sort of historical figure people quote on Instagram. “A woman’s public role is to sit beside her husband, be silent, and be sure her hat is on straight,” she said, even though, behind the scenes, she was nicknamed “the Boss” and wrote many of President Truman’s speeches.
Martha Washington by an unidentified artist, circa 1800-1825.
Such anecdotes permeate Every Eye Is on Me, a new exhibition of first lady portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC, which tracks the development of the role from the early 19th century to the present. The portraits, which range from Martha Washington’s detached stare and frilled bonnet to Melania Trump’s soft-focus smise, aim to examine “the way these women were framed”. The show is also part of an effort “to help rectify the absences of women in US history,” according to its curator, Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw.
Louisa Adams by Charles Robert Leslie, 1816, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis by Boris Chaliapin, 1960-61
Ideally, we would be talking about first spouses, of course, but so far, alas, the US president has always been a man, with a first lady beside him. The position was born of what we might now describe as emotional labour, too. In the early 19th century, says DuBois Shaw, “propriety dictated that a woman be present, as a hostess, if it was a mixed gathering of people”. If no wife was available first daughters, and first female friends were roped in.
Mary Lincoln by Mathew Brady, 1861.
These early first ladies were often very ambitious. “I was struck by how many of these women were smarter than their husbands,” says DuBois Shaw, “but, because of women’s secondary position, had to attach themselves to a man who could take them where they wanted from to go.” Mary Lincoln, for example, “was very interested in politics. But she can’t run so she finds a guy who also wants to go places and tries to partner with him.” This was no easy ride, of course. Being opinionated and outspoken, says DuBois Shaw “she was constantly thwarted by sexism. She develops a reputation as being a difficult woman.”
Eleanor Roosevelt by Yousuf Karsh, 1944.
The question of whether the first lady should verbalise her opinions has reverberated through the ages. Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, had a newspaper column, a weekly radio address and published more than 40 books over her lifetime. Her portrait, in which she is theatrically lit like a screwball heroine, and symbolically holds a pencil, brings this to life. She was “an amazing writer, a woman who found her voice in middle age, and was very active, travelling places her husband couldn’t after contracting polio”, says DuBois Shaw. As a tireless social justice activist, often expressing more radical political views than her husband, her outspokenness made her a polarising figure.
If Eleanor Roosevelt represents the years, during her tenure of 1933 until 1945, when many women’s lives changed dramatically as they entered the workforce as part of the war effort, Mamie Eisenhower’s portrait expresses a thousand words about the 1950s backlash.
In a candyfloss-coloured dress with matching opera gloves and a clutch bag, Mrs Eisenhower, “is an example of the homemaker in chief”, says DuBois Shaw. “She is all about wearing the Dior New Look, with cinched waists and full skirts, and putting pink doilies all over the White House. She is kind of a regressive antidote to the liberated work-empowered women that had come out of the war years; it’s a way to get women back in the kitchen. She models that for working-class and middle-class white women. A shade called Mamie pink became really popular in fashion in the 1950s.”
Mamie Eisenhower by Thomas Edgar Stephens, 1959
All the portraits illustrate something unique about each of the sitters and their approach to the role. Jacqueline Kennedy’s Time magazine cover, for example, speaks of the growing prominence of the role as a political celebrity. She stands in front of the White House portico, with a baby’s pram on the balcony. “It’s a really poignant image because it speaks to the young family she brought to the White House. She is the future.” It also foreshadows the unimaginable tragedy she would soon face when her third baby died two days after he was born, just months before her husband was assassinated.
Betty Ford by Everett Raymond Kinstler, 1996.
Betty Ford’s steadfast bouffant, meanwhile, is represented in oils. During the course of her research, DuBois Shaw says Ford became “my new favourite”. During her time as first lady, she spoke openly about many taboo issues, notably breast cancer and mastectomy. After leaving the White House, she talked about her addiction to prescription painkillers and alcohol, and then memorably launched the Betty Ford clinic. “She initiated a national acceptance of addiction as a disease that is treatable, not shameful, not a moral failing,” says DuBois Shaw. “We have Betty Ford to thank for that.”
But while many first ladies have achieved extraordinary things, within the confines of this unpaid and unelected role, many more have been unsure how to use their power and prominence. Even Mrs Washington, says DuBois Shaw, had a “complicated” relationship with the position. “She was very unhappy about being put into this role because it confined her; she complained to her friends in letters that she hadn’t been able to go anywhere or do anything since her husband had been president.”
Edith and Ethel Roosevelt by Cecilia Beaux, 1902.
This was before the role was, to some extent, regularised by Edith Roosevelt, who established offices in the East Wing and hired a social secretary in 1902. Over the ensuing decades, a retinue of staff sprung up, “helping the first lady to meet the expectations of the public”. Still, over 250 years, there is no satisfactory answer to the question of exactly what a first lady should be. And perhaps that is appropriate: until there are more women in office, and there are routinely first gentlemen too, the role of first lady, and its assumed continuation of a gendered division of power, must remain uncomfortable.
Melania Trump by Régine Mahaux-Van Wassenhove, 2017.
Uncomfortable is certainly the sense you get from Mrs Trump, who publicly wears the perma-peeved expression of a person stuck in a gilded cage with an orange narcissist. A secret recording of her frustrations with the role was recently leaked, in which she complained about the public perception of her as “complicit” in her husband’s cruel immigration policies and the thankless months she had spent on the White House’s festive decorations with the immortal line: “Who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff?”
At least later first ladies have had the chance to create their own images. Since 2006, first lady portraits have been actively commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery, along with its long-running collection of presidential portraits. Hillary Clinton was the first, captured in side-profile, by Ginny Stanford, looking composed and regal, like the head of a coin, flanked by gold leaf panels, and wearing a hopeful shade of buttercup yellow. It is a rather poignant image, given what happened later of which, DuBois Shaw believes, the role of first lady played its part. “Much of the animosity towards her begins when she does not inhabit that role of first lady in the way that the sexist powers-that-be would have it.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton by Ginny Stanford, 2006.
Michelle Obama’s 2018 portrait, by Amy Sherald, reflects her openness and interest in contemporary art as well as her understanding of the power of her endorsements. Sherald and Kehinde Wiley, who painted Barack Obama’s portrait around at the same time, were the first black recipients of commissions from the National Portrait Gallery. There was some controversy when the portrait was released because Obama’s skin was represented in greyscale, which Sherald has used, she has said, “to exclude the idea of colour as race”. Obama was open to working with an artist with her own very strong ideas about how the finished portrait would look, says DuBois Shaw. The dress she wears, designed by Michelle Smith, was also thoughtfully chosen. Its patterns are reminiscent of “patterns and designs commonly found in American quilting, particularly African American quilting traditions, and references the history of women’s needlework and American folk art, and that was something Mrs Obama was drawn to,” says DuBois Shaw.
Michelle Obama by Amy Sherald, 2018.
It will be the Trumps’ turn to be captured next for their exit portraits if, please God, they concede and vacate office (a process on which, sadly, DuBois Shaw would not comment). Until then, the White House provided Mrs Trump’s official photograph, for the exhibition. The current first lady’s razor-sharp jawline, tonged hair and HD eyebrows present a level of grooming that would have been alien to first ladies of yore. It is a highly structured portrait. “Mrs Trump was a model, so she really understands the camera and knows exactly how she wants to look. I think it reflects the desire she may have had – going into the White House back in 2017 – to present a composed and straightforward image of herself,” says DuBois Shaw.
Given that Mrs Trump has played close to a nonspeaking role over the past four years, the choices she makes for her official portrait, when it is released, will be worth a thousand words, and everyone will be listening.
An online version of the exhibition can be accessed here.


theguardian--2020-12-03--Democrats took a risk to push mail-in voting. It paid off

When America began shutting down this spring because of the Covid-19 pandemic , it transformed the already high-stakes 2020 race into a precarious high-wire balancing act .
Election officials across the country , many of whom were already underfunded and under-resourced , began scrambling to find places where they could safely offer in-person voting , and poll workers , who tend to skew older , began to drop out .
Disastrous primaries in Wisconsin and Georgia offered alarming signals that America was barrelling towards a chaotic general election .
Amid this mayhem , states where few people typically vote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and run elections in which most people were expected to vote that way , hoping to avoid long lines and human contact amid the pandemic .
As the year wore on , a sharp partisan divide emerged .
Donald Trump railed against voting by mail , while Democrats aggressively encouraged supporters to do so .
For Democrats , it was a risk .
In many states , vote by mail had not been used before – including key battlegrounds of Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Michigan .
For voters used to casting their ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new set of rules and procedures to follow and a voter could have their ballot rejected for even a small mistake .
While Democrats waged an aggressive legal battle to loosen mail-in voting restrictions many Republican officials refused to do so .
Congress allocated a fraction of the estimated $ 4bn needed to run elections with significantly scaled-up mail-in voting .
Despite severe mail delays this summer , Republican officials in Texas and Ohio limited opportunities for voters to return their ballots in person .
Texas Republicans fought to block people from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sought to reject 127,000 ballots cast using drive-thru voting .
Republicans in Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Michigan and North Carolina strongly objected to efforts to give voters more time to return their ballots and election officials to count them .
In Alabama , the state ’ s top election official successfully went all the way to the US supreme court to block counties from offering curbside voting .
In Oklahoma , after the state supreme court struck down a law requiring voters to get their ballots notarized , Republicans moved quickly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , nearly a month after the election , the risk appears to have paid off for Democrats .
The nightmare scenarios largely didn ’ t occur – there weren ’ t widespread mail delays leading to millions of Americans being disenfranchised , as many feared this summer .
Instead , states with little vote-by-mail experience were able to match more experienced states in running a successful election .
More than 100 million people voted early , either in person or by mail – a record number .
“ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic strategy and the Democratic advantage in vote by mail was just crucially and critically important to Biden ’ s win , ” said Tom Bonier , CEO of TargetSmart , a Democratic data firm that tracks voter data .
“ There ’ s absolutely no way we would have hit these record levels of voter turnout , nationally , without this massive adoption of mail voting.
” ‘ We worked our ass off ’ : more Democrats voted by mail The partisan fights around voting in recent years have been shaped by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people voting benefits Democrats .
But research earlier this year showed that , on the whole , vote by mail does not generally benefit one political party over the other .
As Trump continued to attack vote by mail throughout the year , some Republicans worried he was sabotaging his own voters , dissuading them from a method of voting that might be more convenient and easy than going to the polls .
While the switch to mail-in voting alone can not explain election results , Democrats did in fact do well in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mail , according to data collected by the Guardian and ProPublica .
Counties where people voted by mail at high rates were more likely to swing Democratic compared with four years ago .
As far as raw votes go , many of them came from large suburban counties which swung heavily toward Democrats compared with 2016 .
Some of the counties that had high ballot return rates were ones that Trump carried in 2016 and 2020 , but where Biden was able to cut into his margins .
In Pike county in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned at least 93 % of the mail-in ballots they requested .
Trump carried the county in 2016 by about 26 percentage points .
In 2020 , Trump carried the county by just 19 points .
Jay Tucker , the chair of the Pike county Democratic committee , said there was “ no question ” mail-in balloting helped improve Democrats ’ performance this year .
He said he and other organizers were able to closely track who had requested a ballot and regularly followed up with those who hadn ’ t returned a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off on that , ” Tucker said .
“ One of the biggest mistakes that Trump made in this election was not backing mail-in voting .
Because I think a lot more people came out.
” In Michigan , one of the places that swung hardest towards Democrats was Kent county , home to Grand Rapids .
Trump won the county by four points in 2016 , but Biden carried it by six points this year .
Eighty per cent of the people who requested mail-in ballots returned them , something that contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gary Stark , the chairman of the county Democratic party .
“ I think that the absentee voting was a factor in the higher turnout .
I think a number of new voters did use absentee ballots or mail-in ballots this time .
No way to prove that , but that would be my gut assumption , ” he said .
America saw the highest turnout in a presidential election since the turn of the 20th century .
Nearly 160 million people – about 67 % of those eligible – cast a ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a professor at the University of Florida who closely tracks voter turnout , said there were signs that states that expanded vote by mail contributed more to the higher turnout than those that did not , though he cautioned he was still analyzing voter data .
But the repeated Republican attacks on the process appears to have shaken some voters ’ faith in the process .
Deadlines for returning absentee ballots flipped back and forth as lawsuits made their way through the courts .
There were hundreds of election-related cases brought in state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US supreme court declined to lift restrictions on mail-in voting in the handful of them that reached it .
It took a federal lawsuit to get the United States Postal Service to be transparent and make detailed commitments about how it would guarantee the timely delivery of ballots .
“ My mom was like , no , don ’ t put anything in the mail .
Don ’ t trust the mailbox .
Walk it inside and drop it in , ” said Sonni King , who requested a mail-in ballot and returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ location in Philadelphia days ahead of the election .
“ I ’ ve been hearing a lot about the whole mail issues and the breaching and all of that so I felt like this was a safer route , ” said Brittany Davis , who voted in person on election day in Philadelphia .
“ You just hear so much in the news , in the media , I don ’ t know how much is true and how much is false , just [ about ] the mail-in ballots being messed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
So I just know if I was able to come in , even if I had to wait , just to make sure my vote was 100 % counted , I was gon na do it , ” said Shofolahan Da-silva , who also voted in person in Philadelphia .
There ’ s also the fact that some communities had a more difficult time voting by mail .
As the election neared , Black voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly had their ballots flagged for potential rejection .
Native Americans also faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postal service on reservations can be unreliable and the nearest post office might be hours away .
‘ Habit-forming ’ : expanded access could be here to stay The success of mail-in voting this year could mean that more people will vote by mail in the future , Bonier said .
That could mean more election infrastructure that supports the sending and counting of these ballots – a process that caused some of the biggest legal fights of the election .
“ Historically , generally when people vote by mail once , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ What we ’ ll see in terms of the trend line is this election represented a massive spike in interest in mail voting , and some of that will recede , but we ’ ll settle at a point where far more people in this country will vote by mail in future elections than did prior to 2020.
” In Georgia , for example , people who voted by mail in the 2018 midterm election were far more likely to vote by mail again in 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Georgia secretary of state .
Of those who voted in both elections , about 78 % of people who cast mail ballots in 2018 did so again in 2020 .
Just 34 % of in-person voters in 2018 voted by mail in 2020 .
Still , if states will continue to embrace the dramatic expansion of mail-in voting after a record turnout election .
Republicans in Georgia , as well as Lindsey Graham , the South Carolina senator , have already suggested revisiting the rules around mail-in voting .
Such an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican strategy of trying to make it harder to vote to preserve the party ’ s power .
“ I think we could see some rolling back .
It would be hard to justify that given how high turnout was , and the goal should be higher participation , ” Bonier said .
“ But just given the polarization we ’ ve seen specifically on this issue of mail voting , it ’ s unreasonable to assume there won ’ t be at least some efforts to restrict mail voting in future elections @ @

Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletter
When America began shutting down this spring because of the Covid-19 pandemic, it transformed the already high-stakes 2020 race into a precarious high-wire balancing act.
Election officials across the country, many of whom were already underfunded and under-resourced, began scrambling to find places where they could safely offer in-person voting, and poll workers, who tend to skew older, began to drop out. Disastrous primaries in Wisconsin and Georgia offered alarming signals that America was barrelling towards a chaotic general election.
Amid this mayhem, states where few people typically vote by mail were suddenly forced to scale up and run elections in which most people were expected to vote that way, hoping to avoid long lines and human contact amid the pandemic. As the year wore on, a sharp partisan divide emerged. Donald Trump railed against voting by mail, while Democrats aggressively encouraged supporters to do so.
For Democrats, it was a risk. In many states, vote by mail had not been used before – including key battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. For voters used to casting their ballots in person, voting by mail offered a new set of rules and procedures to follow and a voter could have their ballot rejected for even a small mistake.
While Democrats waged an aggressive legal battle to loosen mail-in voting restrictions many Republican officials refused to do so. Congress allocated a fraction of the estimated $4bn needed to run elections with significantly scaled-up mail-in voting. Despite severe mail delays this summer, Republican officials in Texas and Ohio limited opportunities for voters to return their ballots in person. Texas Republicans fought to block people from being able to register to vote online and sought to reject 127,000 ballots cast using drive-thru voting. Republicans in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina strongly objected to efforts to give voters more time to return their ballots and election officials to count them. In Alabama, the state’s top election official successfully went all the way to the US supreme court to block counties from offering curbside voting. In Oklahoma, after the state supreme court struck down a law requiring voters to get their ballots notarized, Republicans moved quickly to reinstate a revised version of the measure.
Now, nearly a month after the election, the risk appears to have paid off for Democrats. The nightmare scenarios largely didn’t occur – there weren’t widespread mail delays leading to millions of Americans being disenfranchised, as many feared this summer. Instead, states with little vote-by-mail experience were able to match more experienced states in running a successful election. More than 100 million people voted early, either in person or by mail – a record number.
“I’m fairly convinced at this point that the Democratic strategy and the Democratic advantage in vote by mail was just crucially and critically important to Biden’s win,” said Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm that tracks voter data. “There’s absolutely no way we would have hit these record levels of voter turnout, nationally, without this massive adoption of mail voting.”
‘We worked our ass off’: more Democrats voted by mail
The partisan fights around voting in recent years have been shaped by a belief that, generally, more people voting benefits Democrats. But research earlier this year showed that, on the whole, vote by mail does not generally benefit one political party over the other. As Trump continued to attack vote by mail throughout the year, some Republicans worried he was sabotaging his own voters, dissuading them from a method of voting that might be more convenient and easy than going to the polls.
While the switch to mail-in voting alone cannot explain election results, Democrats did in fact do well in places where many people chose to vote by mail, according to data collected by the Guardian and ProPublica. Counties where people voted by mail at high rates were more likely to swing Democratic compared with four years ago.
As far as raw votes go, many of them came from large suburban counties which swung heavily toward Democrats compared with 2016.
Some of the counties that had high ballot return rates were ones that Trump carried in 2016 and 2020, but where Biden was able to cut into his margins. In Pike county in north-east Pennsylvania, for example, voters returned at least 93% of the mail-in ballots they requested. Trump carried the county in 2016 by about 26 percentage points. In 2020, Trump carried the county by just 19 points.
Jay Tucker, the chair of the Pike county Democratic committee, said there was “no question” mail-in balloting helped improve Democrats’ performance this year. He said he and other organizers were able to closely track who had requested a ballot and regularly followed up with those who hadn’t returned a ballot.
“We worked our ass off on that,” Tucker said. “One of the biggest mistakes that Trump made in this election was not backing mail-in voting. Because I think a lot more people came out.”
In Michigan, one of the places that swung hardest towards Democrats was Kent county, home to Grand Rapids. Trump won the county by four points in 2016, but Biden carried it by six points this year. Eighty per cent of the people who requested mail-in ballots returned them, something that contributed to Democrats doing well there, said Gary Stark, the chairman of the county Democratic party.
“I think that the absentee voting was a factor in the higher turnout. I think a number of new voters did use absentee ballots or mail-in ballots this time. No way to prove that, but that would be my gut assumption,” he said.
‘Don’t trust the mailbox’: varying views on mail-in ballots
America saw the highest turnout in a presidential election since the turn of the 20th century. Nearly 160 million people – about 67% of those eligible – cast a ballot this year. And Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida who closely tracks voter turnout, said there were signs that states that expanded vote by mail contributed more to the higher turnout than those that did not, though he cautioned he was still analyzing voter data.
But the repeated Republican attacks on the process appears to have shaken some voters’ faith in the process.
Deadlines for returning absentee ballots flipped back and forth as lawsuits made their way through the courts. There were hundreds of election-related cases brought in state and federal courts this year. The US supreme court declined to lift restrictions on mail-in voting in the handful of them that reached it. It took a federal lawsuit to get the United States Postal Service to be transparent and make detailed commitments about how it would guarantee the timely delivery of ballots.
“My mom was like, no, don’t put anything in the mail. Don’t trust the mailbox. Walk it inside and drop it in,” said Sonni King, who requested a mail-in ballot and returned it in person at a satellite voting location in Philadelphia days ahead of the election.
“I’ve been hearing a lot about the whole mail issues and the breaching and all of that so I felt like this was a safer route,” said Brittany Davis, who voted in person on election day in Philadelphia.
“You just hear so much in the news, in the media, I don’t know how much is true and how much is false, just [about] the mail-in ballots being messed with, people not doing it the right way. So I just know if I was able to come in, even if I had to wait, just to make sure my vote was 100% counted, I was gonna do it,” said Shofolahan Da-silva, who also voted in person in Philadelphia.
There’s also the fact that some communities had a more difficult time voting by mail. As the election neared, Black voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly had their ballots flagged for potential rejection.
Native Americans also faced severe hurdles to voting by mail – postal service on reservations can be unreliable and the nearest post office might be hours away.
‘Habit-forming’: expanded access could be here to stay
The success of mail-in voting this year could mean that more people will vote by mail in the future, Bonier said. That could mean more election infrastructure that supports the sending and counting of these ballots – a process that caused some of the biggest legal fights of the election.
“Historically, generally when people vote by mail once, they do it again. It is habit-forming,” he said. “What we’ll see in terms of the trend line is this election represented a massive spike in interest in mail voting, and some of that will recede, but we’ll settle at a point where far more people in this country will vote by mail in future elections than did prior to 2020.”
In Georgia, for example, people who voted by mail in the 2018 midterm election were far more likely to vote by mail again in 2020, according to a Guardian analysis of data from the Georgia secretary of state. Of those who voted in both elections, about 78% of people who cast mail ballots in 2018 did so again in 2020. Just 34% of in-person voters in 2018 voted by mail in 2020.
Still, if states will continue to embrace the dramatic expansion of mail-in voting after a record turnout election. Republicans in Georgia, as well as Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator, have already suggested revisiting the rules around mail-in voting. Such an approach would fit in with a well-documented Republican strategy of trying to make it harder to vote to preserve the party’s power.
“I think we could see some rolling back. It would be hard to justify that given how high turnout was, and the goal should be higher participation,” Bonier said. “But just given the polarization we’ve seen specifically on this issue of mail voting, it’s unreasonable to assume there won’t be at least some efforts to restrict mail voting in future elections.”


theguardian--2020-12-03--US election results 2020: Joe Biden defeats Donald Trump to win presidency

Americans are also electing members to the two chambers of Congress , the main law-making body of the US .
@ @ @ @ @ and the House of Representatives .
Without support in the Senate and the House , @ @ @ @ @ enact key policies is severely limited .

Niko Kommenda, Antonio Voce, Frank Hulley-Jones, Anna Leach and Seán Clarke

Americans are also electing members to the two chambers of Congress, the main law-making body of the US. Those chambers are the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Without support in the Senate and the House, the president's ability to enact key policies is severely limited.


theguardian--2020-12-03--Ivanka Trump quizzed as part of inauguration fund lawsuit

Ivanka Trump was interviewed by attorneys alleging that Donald Trump ’ s 2017 inauguration committee misused donor funds , a new court filing reveals .
The document , first reported by CNN on Wednesday , shows that Ivanka Trump , the president ’ s oldest daughter and a senior White House adviser , was interviewed on Tuesday by attorneys from the Washington , DC , attorney general ’ s office .
The office has filed a lawsuit alleging waste of the nonprofit ’ s funds , accusing the committee of making more than $ 1m ( £746,000 ) in improper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , DC , hotel during the week of the inauguration in 2017 .
As part of the suit , they have subpoenaed records from Ivanka Trump ; the first lady , Melania Trump ; Thomas Barrack Jr , a close friend of the president who chaired the inaugural committee , and others .
Barrack was also interviewed last month .
Trump ’ s inaugural committee spent more than $ 1m to book a ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in the nation ’ s capital as part of a scheme to “ grossly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s own family in the process , the District of Columbia ’ s attorney general , Karl Racine , alleges .
He has accused the committee of misusing nonprofit funds and coordinating with the hotel ’ s management and members of the Trump family to arrange the events .
“ District law requires nonprofits to use their funds for their stated public purpose , not to benefit private individuals or companies , ” Racine has said .
“ In this case , we are seeking to recover the nonprofit funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump family business.
” The committee raised an unprecedented $ 107m to host events celebrating Trump ’ s inauguration in January 2017 , but its spending has drawn continued scrutiny .
In a statement , Alan Garten , from the Trump Organization , said that “ Ms Trump ’ s only involvement was connecting the parties and instructing the hotel to charge a ‘ fair market rate , ’ which the hotel did .
”

Ivanka Trump was interviewed by attorneys alleging that Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration committee misused donor funds, a new court filing reveals.
The document, first reported by CNN on Wednesday, shows that Ivanka Trump, the president’s oldest daughter and a senior White House adviser, was interviewed on Tuesday by attorneys from the Washington, DC, attorney general’s office.
The office has filed a lawsuit alleging waste of the nonprofit’s funds, accusing the committee of making more than $1m (£746,000) in improper payments to the president’s Washington, DC, hotel during the week of the inauguration in 2017.
As part of the suit, they have subpoenaed records from Ivanka Trump; the first lady, Melania Trump; Thomas Barrack Jr, a close friend of the president who chaired the inaugural committee, and others. Barrack was also interviewed last month.
Trump’s inaugural committee spent more than $1m to book a ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in the nation’s capital as part of a scheme to “grossly overpay” for party space and enrich the president’s own family in the process, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, Karl Racine, alleges.
He has accused the committee of misusing nonprofit funds and coordinating with the hotel’s management and members of the Trump family to arrange the events.
“District law requires nonprofits to use their funds for their stated public purpose, not to benefit private individuals or companies,” Racine has said. “In this case, we are seeking to recover the nonprofit funds that were improperly funnelled directly to the Trump family business.”
The committee raised an unprecedented $107m to host events celebrating Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, but its spending has drawn continued scrutiny.
In a statement, Alan Garten, from the Trump Organization, said that “Ms Trump’s only involvement was connecting the parties and instructing the hotel to charge a ‘fair market rate,’ which the hotel did.”


theguardian--2020-12-03--Republicans are winning over Asian immigrants like my father. Here's why | Geoffrey Mak

My father is a Chinese immigrant , middle-class .
Growing up , he and his family were often on the move , escaping conflict in Vietnam , then the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution in China .
During the reign of Chairman Mao , my father remembers schoolmates in Shanghai who were disappeared by the government .
He had heard of dissidents who swam from mainland China to Hong Kong by night .
Politically , he considered evangelicalism , anti-communism and democracy to be radical : the west .
America captivated his imagination by way of Woodstock – Bob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and pictures of the magical big houses that sprawled the suburbs .
After he immigrated to the States in the 1970s , he eventually did get his big house in the suburbs , which today stands at the heart of California ’ s 39th congressional district , comprising parts of Los Angeles , San Bernardino and Orange county .
It ’ s where the rapidly growing Asian American population was , in the last decade , heralded as the future of the Republican party .
In November , the district flipped a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My father voted for Trump .
He is just one of many Chinese American immigrants who increasingly find sympathy and belonging in the Republican party .
They appear undeterred by Trump ’ s xenophobic rhetoric , with slurs like the “ Chinese virus ” and “ kung-flu ” .
More pressingly , they vehemently hate the Chinese Communist party and support Trump ’ s hawkish stance against China in the trade wars .
Chinese voters make up the largest group within Asian Americans , who are collectively the fastest-growing demographic category in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall , Trump gained seven percentage points with Asian Americans this election .
( Among Asians , only Japanese Americans shifted toward the Democrats . )
This might be cause for alarm for Democrats , who like to see themselves as the bearer of a nationwide multiracial coalition .
Is this a myth ?
In California , a Democratic stronghold , Asian Americans appear increasingly nonplussed about campaigns touting multicultural ideals .
For instance , many Asian American families oppose affirmative action , fearing that their children would suffer in elite university admissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race .
So when Proposition 16 – which would have ended a 24-year-old ban on affirmative action in education , employment and contracting – appeared on the ballot , Asian Americans played a pivotal role in voting it down .
They were not taking it for the team .
But should they be expected to ?
I voted for Proposition 16 in support of affirmative action , but I represent a segment of the liberal elite : a photogenic if not misleading face of the Asian American constituency .
For people like my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and multiculturalism are leaving them cold .
When Kamala Harris identified as the first Asian American vice-presidential candidate , my father did not particularly “ feel seen ” .
When he read that Black Lives Matter protests turned violent , he bought an American flag from Amazon and hoisted it above his front door .
Some of his views and choices mystify me , but I see how , for instance , a term like “ Bipoc ” – which stands for Black and Indigenous people of color , and stakes authority based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian Americans feeling squeezed out of the minority coalition , like an expendable casualty .
This breeds the kind of resentment that the writer Wesley Yang identified when describing Asian Americans as “ a nominal minority whose claim to be a ‘ person of color ’ deserving of the special regard reserved for victims is taken seriously by no one ” .
While the Biden campaign heavily courted the suburban vote , it still missed demographics like my father ’ s .
In California ’ s 39th district , where my parents live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign where Chinese-speaking staffers reached out to voters on apps like WeChat and Line ( popular with Chinese ) , and Korean speakers to voters on KakaoTalk ( popular with Koreans ) .
This diversified approach helped secure his victory in 2018 .
Yet this year he still lost to the Republican candidate Young Kim .
The Republican campaign to Asian Americans was narrower in scope than the Democrats ’ , but Republicans still won the hearts and minds of California ’ s 39th district .
That so many swing congressional districts pivoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s victory is more indicative of a general impatience to vote Trump out of office , rather than a long-term persuasion towards Democratic interests .
While Democrats still hold the majority of Asian American voters , they can hardly take them for granted .
Today , Asian Americans are the only major demographic category in which naturalized citizens make up the majority , and the immigrant population is increasing .
While the multiracial coalition is certainly an ideal worth fighting for , the Democrats need to find ways of reaching immigrant voters that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian Americans as a consolidated monolith , and listen more to the grievances and enthusiasms immigrants feel today .
Asian Americans will be ignorable up until they ’ re not .
• None Geoffrey Mak is a writer based in Berlin , and his first essay collection is forthcoming

My father is a Chinese immigrant, middle-class. Growing up, he and his family were often on the move, escaping conflict in Vietnam, then the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution in China. During the reign of Chairman Mao, my father remembers schoolmates in Shanghai who were disappeared by the government. He had heard of dissidents who swam from mainland China to Hong Kong by night. Politically, he considered evangelicalism, anti-communism and democracy to be radical: the west. America captivated his imagination by way of Woodstock – Bob Dylan and Peter, Paul and Mary – and pictures of the magical big houses that sprawled the suburbs.
After he immigrated to the States in the 1970s, he eventually did get his big house in the suburbs, which today stands at the heart of California’s 39th congressional district, comprising parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange county. It’s where the rapidly growing Asian American population was, in the last decade, heralded as the future of the Republican party. In November, the district flipped a House seat from Democrat to Republican. My father voted for Trump.
He is just one of many Chinese American immigrants who increasingly find sympathy and belonging in the Republican party. They appear undeterred by Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric, with slurs like the “Chinese virus” and “kung-flu”. More pressingly, they vehemently hate the Chinese Communist party and support Trump’s hawkish stance against China in the trade wars. Chinese voters make up the largest group within Asian Americans, who are collectively the fastest-growing demographic category in the country. While Asian Americans supported Biden overall, Trump gained seven percentage points with Asian Americans this election. (Among Asians, only Japanese Americans shifted toward the Democrats.)
This might be cause for alarm for Democrats, who like to see themselves as the bearer of a nationwide multiracial coalition. Is this a myth? In California, a Democratic stronghold, Asian Americans appear increasingly nonplussed about campaigns touting multicultural ideals. For instance, many Asian American families oppose affirmative action, fearing that their children would suffer in elite university admissions if merit were given less weight than race. So when Proposition 16 – which would have ended a 24-year-old ban on affirmative action in education, employment and contracting – appeared on the ballot, Asian Americans played a pivotal role in voting it down. They were not taking it for the team. But should they be expected to?
I voted for Proposition 16 in support of affirmative action, but I represent a segment of the liberal elite: a photogenic if not misleading face of the Asian American constituency. For people like my father, Democrats’ messages of inclusion and multiculturalism are leaving them cold.
When Kamala Harris identified as the first Asian American vice-presidential candidate, my father did not particularly “feel seen”. When he read that Black Lives Matter protests turned violent, he bought an American flag from Amazon and hoisted it above his front door. Some of his views and choices mystify me, but I see how, for instance, a term like “Bipoc” – which stands for Black and Indigenous people of color, and stakes authority based on relative disadvantage – risks leaving many Asian Americans feeling squeezed out of the minority coalition, like an expendable casualty. This breeds the kind of resentment that the writer Wesley Yang identified when describing Asian Americans as “a nominal minority whose claim to be a ‘person of color’ deserving of the special regard reserved for victims is taken seriously by no one”.
While the Biden campaign heavily courted the suburban vote, it still missed demographics like my father’s. In California’s 39th district, where my parents live, Democrat Gil Cisneros launched a much-lauded campaign where Chinese-speaking staffers reached out to voters on apps like WeChat and Line (popular with Chinese), and Korean speakers to voters on KakaoTalk (popular with Koreans). This diversified approach helped secure his victory in 2018. Yet this year he still lost to the Republican candidate Young Kim.
The Republican campaign to Asian Americans was narrower in scope than the Democrats’, but Republicans still won the hearts and minds of California’s 39th district. That so many swing congressional districts pivoted Republican seems to indicate that Biden’s victory is more indicative of a general impatience to vote Trump out of office, rather than a long-term persuasion towards Democratic interests. While Democrats still hold the majority of Asian American voters, they can hardly take them for granted.
Today, Asian Americans are the only major demographic category in which naturalized citizens make up the majority, and the immigrant population is increasing. While the multiracial coalition is certainly an ideal worth fighting for, the Democrats need to find ways of reaching immigrant voters that go beyond an identity politics that treats Asian Americans as a consolidated monolith, and listen more to the grievances and enthusiasms immigrants feel today. Asian Americans will be ignorable up until they’re not.


theguardian--2020-12-03--Donald Trump believes in clemency and mercy. But only for his friends and family | Jill Filipovic

Given that Donald Trump treats the office of the presidency like a personal branding tool , and deals with adversity like a two-bit mafioso , this moment was perhaps predictable : the president is reportedly considering pre-emptively pardoning three of his children , his son-in-law , and associates including Rudy Giuliani .
He has already pardoned or commuted the sentences of several of his friends and associates , which should raise some eyebrows – why do so many people who surround this president wind up charged with a crime , in jail , or bracing themselves for criminal charges ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life ” Republican party shrugging as this president excuses the criminality of his kin and his cronies while he refuses to intervene to save anyone from execution – and in fact , is using what little time he has left in office to reinstate barbaric practices like death by firing squad ?
We all know Trump didn ’ t drain the swamp .
But in his last two months in office , he is sending a clear message about who and what he and his party value .
It ’ s not Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even the sanctity of life .
It ’ s power , dominance and a thick line between two Americas : one connected , white , power-hungry and lawless , and the other at its mercy .
As Trump ’ s term winds down , the White House is reportedly besieged with requests from lackeys and sycophants and hangers-on and D-list celebrities who all believe the president may grant them a get-out-of-jail-free card ( or , in the case of his children and Giuliani , who have not been charged or convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Even the Tiger King has made his case to the president .
Many expect that the president will issue a flurry of pardons and commutations , and this largesse will be bestowed much like the measly 11 pardons and commutations he ’ s issued so far : on people who worked for him , people who supported him , people could incriminate him and people who personally impress him ( sometimes via reality television stars , because we are living in the worst of times ) .
He ’ s granted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisers , supporters and loyalists , with a few war criminals and conservative cultural icons thrown in for good measure .
The only people he has used his pardon power to help who fall outside that characterization are either famous but long-dead historical figures and Alice Marie Johnson , who was serving a life sentence for a non-violent drug offense – and whose case he only learned about because reality television star Kim Kardashian West brought it to his desk .
What he largely hasn ’ t done is use the presidential clemency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct serious injustice and act with compassion .
Despite touting himself as a president who has done more for criminal justice reform than any other , the opposite is actually true : Trump has refused to use his powers for good , and has been appalling harsh on those who have been over-sentenced .
Several people on federal death row have appealed to the president for clemency – not to go home , just to not be killed by the state .
So far , Trump has ignored them .
The list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernard , who was just 18 when he joined a group of friends for what he thought was going to be a carjacking and a robbery ; one of his friends ended up murdering the couple the group robbed , in a brutal act Bernard had not foreseen and was horrified by .
At trial , Bernard ’ s lawyer , who had never argued a federal death penalty case before , barely mounted a defense and failed to call important witnesses .
Several members of the jury that convicted him now say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there ’ s Lisa Montgomery , the only woman on federal death row , who committed an awful crime – she murdered a pregnant woman and stole her baby – but also has a severe and debilitating mental illness , and , her lawyers say , was psychotic when she committed that heinous crime .
No one is asking the president to pardon Bernard or Montgomery .
They are only asking that he commute their death sentences , relegating them instead to life in prison , which is hardly a free pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children for whatever crimes he believes they have committed , he ’ s refusing to save the lives of Bernard and Montgomery – even though both of them are someone ’ s child , too .
And it ’ s even worse than that : this is only an issue because Trump ’ s attorney general , Bill Barr , chose to bring back the federal death penalty – he didn ’ t have to , and like several of his predecessors he could have chosen not to , but he made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his office to kill Americans .
Before Trump took office , there hadn ’ t been a federal execution in nearly two decades .
That changed under Barr – who claims , appallingly , to be “ pro-life.
” After more than a 30-year period with just a single federal execution ( under George W Bush in 2003 ) , in the little more than a year since July 2019 , the federal government has executed eight people .
They ’ re continuing executions even after Americans voted Trump out of office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been done since 1889 .
And now that their days in power are waning , the Barr justice department , apparently not content with executing Americans by lethal injection , is going an even more gruesome route : they are quickly pushing through new rules that would allow the federal government to kill prisoners via electrocution and firing squad .
There ’ s no “ humane ” way to execute a human being .
But there are certainly symbolically vicious ways .
And that is what this administration is embracing as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s utter lack of mercy isn ’ t particularly surprising .
But it is abhorrent and scandalous that he has ramped up his cruelty toward death row inmates while simultaneously abusing his power to protect his family members and the various criminal toadies in his orbit .
And it is pathetic that Republicans have nothing to say about these excesses , while the “ pro-life ” groups that back the president have largely fallen silent .
It seems all lives don ’ t matter after all .
This president ’ s use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fairness or law or order ; it ’ s about protecting criminals who work in his service , and it ’ s about as venal , depraved , and corrupt as it gets .

Given that Donald Trump treats the office of the presidency like a personal branding tool, and deals with adversity like a two-bit mafioso, this moment was perhaps predictable: the president is reportedly considering pre-emptively pardoning three of his children, his son-in-law, and associates including Rudy Giuliani. He has already pardoned or commuted the sentences of several of his friends and associates, which should raise some eyebrows – why do so many people who surround this president wind up charged with a crime, in jail, or bracing themselves for criminal charges? And why is the supposedly law-and-order “pro-life” Republican party shrugging as this president excuses the criminality of his kin and his cronies while he refuses to intervene to save anyone from execution – and in fact, is using what little time he has left in office to reinstate barbaric practices like death by firing squad?
We all know Trump didn’t drain the swamp. But in his last two months in office, he is sending a clear message about who and what he and his party value. It’s not Christian mercy, or hard-nosed law and order, or even the sanctity of life. It’s power, dominance and a thick line between two Americas: one connected, white, power-hungry and lawless, and the other at its mercy.
As Trump’s term winds down, the White House is reportedly besieged with requests from lackeys and sycophants and hangers-on and D-list celebrities who all believe the president may grant them a get-out-of-jail-free card (or, in the case of his children and Giuliani, who have not been charged or convicted of any crimes, a get-out-of-ever-being-held-accountable card). Even the Tiger King has made his case to the president.
Many expect that the president will issue a flurry of pardons and commutations, and this largesse will be bestowed much like the measly 11 pardons and commutations he’s issued so far: on people who worked for him, people who supported him, people could incriminate him and people who personally impress him (sometimes via reality television stars, because we are living in the worst of times).
Trump has refused to use his powers for good, and has been appalling harsh on those who have been over-sentenced
He’s granted clemency almost entirely to his friends, advisers, supporters and loyalists, with a few war criminals and conservative cultural icons thrown in for good measure. The only people he has used his pardon power to help who fall outside that characterization are either famous but long-dead historical figures and Alice Marie Johnson, who was serving a life sentence for a non-violent drug offense – and whose case he only learned about because reality television star Kim Kardashian West brought it to his desk.
What he largely hasn’t done is use the presidential clemency power for its highest purpose: to correct serious injustice and act with compassion.
Despite touting himself as a president who has done more for criminal justice reform than any other, the opposite is actually true: Trump has refused to use his powers for good, and has been appalling harsh on those who have been over-sentenced. Several people on federal death row have appealed to the president for clemency – not to go home, just to not be killed by the state. So far, Trump has ignored them. The list of those who are still alive includes Brandon Bernard, who was just 18 when he joined a group of friends for what he thought was going to be a carjacking and a robbery; one of his friends ended up murdering the couple the group robbed, in a brutal act Bernard had not foreseen and was horrified by. At trial, Bernard’s lawyer, who had never argued a federal death penalty case before, barely mounted a defense and failed to call important witnesses. Several members of the jury that convicted him now say that he should not be executed. And there’s Lisa Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row, who committed an awful crime – she murdered a pregnant woman and stole her baby – but also has a severe and debilitating mental illness, and, her lawyers say, was psychotic when she committed that heinous crime.
Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr, chose to bring back the federal death penalty. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
No one is asking the president to pardon Bernard or Montgomery. They are only asking that he commute their death sentences, relegating them instead to life in prison, which is hardly a free pass. While Trump considers pardoning his own children for whatever crimes he believes they have committed, he’s refusing to save the lives of Bernard and Montgomery – even though both of them are someone’s child, too.
And it’s even worse than that: this is only an issue because Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr, chose to bring back the federal death penalty – he didn’t have to, and like several of his predecessors he could have chosen not to, but he made it a priority to use the power of his office to kill Americans. Before Trump took office, there hadn’t been a federal execution in nearly two decades. That changed under Barr – who claims, appallingly, to be “pro-life.” After more than a 30-year period with just a single federal execution (under George W Bush in 2003), in the little more than a year since July 2019, the federal government has executed eight people. They’re continuing executions even after Americans voted Trump out of office, something so highly unusual it hasn’t been done since 1889.
And now that their days in power are waning, the Barr justice department, apparently not content with executing Americans by lethal injection, is going an even more gruesome route: they are quickly pushing through new rules that would allow the federal government to kill prisoners via electrocution and firing squad.
There’s no “humane” way to execute a human being. But there are certainly symbolically vicious ways. And that is what this administration is embracing as it continues its execution spree.
Trump’s utter lack of mercy isn’t particularly surprising. But it is abhorrent and scandalous that he has ramped up his cruelty toward death row inmates while simultaneously abusing his power to protect his family members and the various criminal toadies in his orbit. And it is pathetic that Republicans have nothing to say about these excesses, while the “pro-life” groups that back the president have largely fallen silent. It seems all lives don’t matter after all.
This president’s use of his clemency power is not about justice or fairness or law or order; it’s about protecting criminals who work in his service, and it’s about as venal, depraved, and corrupt as it gets.