truthout--2020-12-10--Senator Perdue’s Ethics Concerns Include Sale of His Home to a Senate Lobbyist

Sen. David Perdue , R-Ga. , sold his Washington , D.C. , home last year to a brokerage industry official whose organization is under the purview of a committee Perdue sits on .
The deal was made off market , without the home being listed for sale publicly .
Though an appraisal provided to ProPublica by the buyer found that Perdue sold for slightly under market value , four local real estate experts disagreed , telling ProPublica that the almost $ 1.8 million sale price Perdue garnered seemed high .
Their estimates of the premium ranged from a few thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 140,000 .
A fifth expert said the price was squarely fair market value .
Ultimately , congressional ethics experts said , their concern was that Perdue sold privately and to someone whose organization that he oversaw as a senator .
“ Determining fair market value is always a gray area , unless the sales are done in a competitive open market , ” said Craig Holman with the watchdog group Public Citizen .
“ Since the purchase and sale of this property by Sen. Perdue was not done on the open market , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sale was in fact at fair market value.
” If the price was above fair market value , Holman said , “ this would be a violation of his ethical obligations and an opportunity for those with business pending before Perdue ’ s committee to curry favor.
” A Perdue spokesperson said that the senator and his wife sold the townhouse at fair market price , and that the lender appraisal confirmed that .
“ None of this had anything to do with the senator ’ s official role , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know any of the individuals , and they used the same realtor during the purchase and sale of the property.
” Perdue ’ s office provided a statement from the couple ’ s real estate agent , Justin Paulhamus : “ Since inventory was so limited at the time of the sale , we priced it at market value and were fortunate to get an offer.
” Perdue ’ s spokesperson said the senator ’ s real estate agent “ floated it off market first , and they would have put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at their asking price which was fair market value.
” Perdue is locked in a runoff campaign against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff .
Along with fellow Georgia Republican Kelly Loeffler ’ s race against Raphael Warnock , his contest could determine which party controls the Senate and with it , whether President-elect Joe Biden can implement much of his agenda .
Perdue has faced multiple allegations that he has mixed his private financial interests with his official work .
The most prolific stock trader in the Senate , he bought and sold shares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on have jurisdiction over .
Some of his trades came at fortunate times .
Earlier this year , the Justice Department investigated him and other lawmakers for possible insider trading .
Perdue denied the allegations .
Prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring charges against him .
Perdue ’ s home buyer in October 2019 was Hillary Sale , a board governor for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority , a privately funded self-regulatory body for the securities industry .
The organization falls under the purview of the Senate Banking Committee , which Perdue sits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was lobbying on a bill out of the banking committee that would have required the organization to establish a fund to pay investors bilked by brokers .
A FINRA spokesman said the organization has not lobbied Perdue specifically .
In a statement , Sale said she learned of the home though her real estate agent and never interacted with Perdue .
She provided ProPublica with an appraisal from her lender showing the home was valued at $ 1.8 million , $ 11,000 over the amount she paid .
Samer Kuraishi , who leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said appraisals are done after a price is agreed to , and that they typically are engineered to match the sales price .
Perdue may have saved thousands by not putting his house on the open market .
Kuraishi and other experts said that when doing off-market deals , sellers can negotiate to pay their agents a smaller commission .
“ In that scenario , an agent spends less on staging , less on marketing , less on open houses , less on virtual tours , ” he said .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spokesperson said the senator paid broker fees , but did not respond to questions about whether the fees were discounted .
Perdue ’ s Capitol Hill home and many of those around it were built in the early 2000s by EYA , a developer that specializes in luxury townhomes that maintain the look and feel of historic buildings but come with amenities typically reserved for more suburban locales .
They have individual garages and private courtyards .
Perdue ’ s home featured a rentable separate unit , connected to the main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of the sale , FINRA was lobbying the Senate , according to its disclosure forms , and earlier that year its lobbyists were specifically focused on a bill that would have required the organization to establish a relief fund to provide investors with arbitration awards that went unpaid by FINRA ’ s brokerage firms and brokers .
The bill was authored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, and fell under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee .
The committee had also held hearings that included harsh assessments of how well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , an AFL-CIO official charged that FINRA was failing as a regulator because it was not forcing its members to pay the arbitration settlements .
Perdue ’ s office declined to answer questions about where the senator stood on the bill , which did not pass , or whether he took any actions on it .
Ethics experts are generally troubled when politicians enter into transactions with people who have business before them .
The legality of this sale hinges on whether the home was purchased at fair market value .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it would be considered a gift .
Gifts of significant value to senators are required to be publicly disclosed .
Perdue did not disclose any such gifts .
Earlier this year , ProPublica reported that Sen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , sold his Washington townhouse to a donor and powerful lobbyist who had business before him .
Burr ’ s office said the lawmaker notified the Senate Ethics Committee before the sale .
Perdue ’ s office declined to say if he took similar steps .
The committee does not typically make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not respond to questions about whether Perdue sought advice in this case .
In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict , members of Congress who are buying or selling properties should do so on the open market to help ensure the price paid is fair and to avoid deals with people who have business before them , ethics experts say .
The five local real estate agents who reviewed the transaction for ProPublica had somewhat differing opinions about whether Perdue got an inflated price and , if so , how inflated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not an exact science .
One agent , assuming Perdue did not make significant improvements to the property while living there , priced the home at around $ 1,650,000 .
That would mean Perdue sold for about 8 % over market .
His office declined to say whether he had made those kinds of upgrades , but photos , the agent said , suggest he did not .
A second agent said the price also seemed high , but only about 2 % over market value .
The agent said prominent officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a premium .
“ Buyers don ’ t haggle at that point .
If it ’ s a senator , you ’ re not going to go back and say , ‘ Actually , I ’ ll give you 1.7.
’ They either pay the price or don ’ t buy it.
” A third agent said it seemed slightly above market .
A fourth said the expected range for that property at the time would have been between $ 1.75 million and $ 1.785 million , a shade under Perdue ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A fifth agent said the price Perdue got was squarely at fair market value .
All of the agents asked that their names not be used so as not to affect their ability to continue buying and selling homes in the neighborhood .
The agents said that the price Perdue purchased the home for in 2015 , $ 1.6 million , was about market rate at the time .
That sale was made on the open market .
In that case , Perdue bought from Bill Cheney , the outgoing president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cheney is currently president of a California-based credit union .
Perdue has received donations from the trade group and , as a senator , has helped loosen regulations on credit unions .
One of the real estate agents who spoke with ProPublica noted the short time the home spent on the market before Perdue bought it .
The home was put on the market on a Wednesday and Perdue agreed to a deal to buy it that Friday before there could be a weekend open house .
The agent said it was atypical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without holding an open house to find backup options .
Cheney and his wife told ProPublica they had an open house for brokers only before the home was put on the market .
Perdue got no special treatment , they said , and they had no direct contact with him .
Perdue ’ s spokesperson said the senator bought the townhouse above asking price .
“ Absolutely nothing about the purchase or sale of the property had anything to do with the senator ’ s official role , since they did not know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be no conflict of interest whatsoever , ” the spokesperson said .

The same year an org lobbied the Senate, one of its board governors paid Perdue $1.8 million for his home in D.C.
Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., sold his Washington, D.C., home last year to a brokerage industry official whose organization is under the purview of a committee Perdue sits on.
The deal was made off market, without the home being listed for sale publicly.
Though an appraisal provided to ProPublica by the buyer found that Perdue sold for slightly under market value, four local real estate experts disagreed, telling ProPublica that the almost $1.8 million sale price Perdue garnered seemed high. Their estimates of the premium ranged from a few thousand dollars to as much as about $140,000. A fifth expert said the price was squarely fair market value.
Ultimately, congressional ethics experts said, their concern was that Perdue sold privately and to someone whose organization that he oversaw as a senator.
“Determining fair market value is always a gray area, unless the sales are done in a competitive open market,” said Craig Holman with the watchdog group Public Citizen. “Since the purchase and sale of this property by Sen. Perdue was not done on the open market, it raises serious suspicions as to whether the sale was in fact at fair market value.”
If the price was above fair market value, Holman said, “this would be a violation of his ethical obligations and an opportunity for those with business pending before Perdue’s committee to curry favor.”
A Perdue spokesperson said that the senator and his wife sold the townhouse at fair market price, and that the lender appraisal confirmed that.
“None of this had anything to do with the senator’s official role,” the spokesperson said. “The Perdues did not know any of the individuals, and they used the same realtor during the purchase and sale of the property.”
Perdue’s office provided a statement from the couple’s real estate agent, Justin Paulhamus: “Since inventory was so limited at the time of the sale, we priced it at market value and were fortunate to get an offer.”
Perdue’s spokesperson said the senator’s real estate agent “floated it off market first, and they would have put it on market, but got an offer at their asking price which was fair market value.”
Perdue is locked in a runoff campaign against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff. Along with fellow Georgia Republican Kelly Loeffler’s race against Raphael Warnock, his contest could determine which party controls the Senate and with it, whether President-elect Joe Biden can implement much of his agenda.
Perdue has faced multiple allegations that he has mixed his private financial interests with his official work. The most prolific stock trader in the Senate, he bought and sold shares in companies that the committees he sits on have jurisdiction over. Some of his trades came at fortunate times. Earlier this year, the Justice Department investigated him and other lawmakers for possible insider trading. Perdue denied the allegations. Prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring charges against him.
Perdue’s home buyer in October 2019 was Hillary Sale, a board governor for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a privately funded self-regulatory body for the securities industry. The organization falls under the purview of the Senate Banking Committee, which Perdue sits on. Earlier in 2019, FINRA was lobbying on a bill out of the banking committee that would have required the organization to establish a fund to pay investors bilked by brokers.
A FINRA spokesman said the organization has not lobbied Perdue specifically. In a statement, Sale said she learned of the home though her real estate agent and never interacted with Perdue. She provided ProPublica with an appraisal from her lender showing the home was valued at $1.8 million, $11,000 over the amount she paid. Samer Kuraishi, who leads a real estate agency in Washington, said appraisals are done after a price is agreed to, and that they typically are engineered to match the sales price.
Perdue may have saved thousands by not putting his house on the open market.
Kuraishi and other experts said that when doing off-market deals, sellers can negotiate to pay their agents a smaller commission.
“In that scenario, an agent spends less on staging, less on marketing, less on open houses, less on virtual tours,” he said. “It’s typically an easier sale.”
Perdue’s spokesperson said the senator paid broker fees, but did not respond to questions about whether the fees were discounted.
Perdue’s Capitol Hill home and many of those around it were built in the early 2000s by EYA, a developer that specializes in luxury townhomes that maintain the look and feel of historic buildings but come with amenities typically reserved for more suburban locales. They have individual garages and private courtyards. Perdue’s home featured a rentable separate unit, connected to the main house through interior stairs.
At the time of the sale, FINRA was lobbying the Senate, according to its disclosure forms, and earlier that year its lobbyists were specifically focused on a bill that would have required the organization to establish a relief fund to provide investors with arbitration awards that went unpaid by FINRA’s brokerage firms and brokers. The bill was authored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and fell under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee.
The committee had also held hearings that included harsh assessments of how well FINRA was policing its own. In 2018, an AFL-CIO official charged that FINRA was failing as a regulator because it was not forcing its members to pay the arbitration settlements.
Perdue’s office declined to answer questions about where the senator stood on the bill, which did not pass, or whether he took any actions on it.
Ethics experts are generally troubled when politicians enter into transactions with people who have business before them. The legality of this sale hinges on whether the home was purchased at fair market value. If it was Apurchased for more than that, it would be considered a gift. Gifts of significant value to senators are required to be publicly disclosed. Perdue did not disclose any such gifts.
Earlier this year, ProPublica reported that Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., sold his Washington townhouse to a donor and powerful lobbyist who had business before him. Burr’s office said the lawmaker notified the Senate Ethics Committee before the sale. Perdue’s office declined to say if he took similar steps. The committee does not typically make such guidance public, and it did not respond to questions about whether Perdue sought advice in this case.
In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict, members of Congress who are buying or selling properties should do so on the open market to help ensure the price paid is fair and to avoid deals with people who have business before them, ethics experts say.
The five local real estate agents who reviewed the transaction for ProPublica had somewhat differing opinions about whether Perdue got an inflated price and, if so, how inflated. All cautioned that valuing a property is not an exact science.
One agent, assuming Perdue did not make significant improvements to the property while living there, priced the home at around $1,650,000. That would mean Perdue sold for about 8% over market. His office declined to say whether he had made those kinds of upgrades, but photos, the agent said, suggest he did not.
A second agent said the price also seemed high, but only about 2% over market value. The agent said prominent officials selling homes in private deals will often get a premium. “Buyers don’t haggle at that point. If it’s a senator, you’re not going to go back and say, ‘Actually, I’ll give you 1.7.’ They either pay the price or don’t buy it.”
A third agent said it seemed slightly above market. A fourth said the expected range for that property at the time would have been between $1.75 million and $1.785 million, a shade under Perdue’s $1.789 million sale price. A fifth agent said the price Perdue got was squarely at fair market value. All of the agents asked that their names not be used so as not to affect their ability to continue buying and selling homes in the neighborhood.
The agents said that the price Perdue purchased the home for in 2015, $1.6 million, was about market rate at the time. That sale was made on the open market.
In that case, Perdue bought from Bill Cheney, the outgoing president of the trade group lobbying for credit unions; Cheney is currently president of a California-based credit union. Perdue has received donations from the trade group and, as a senator, has helped loosen regulations on credit unions.
One of the real estate agents who spoke with ProPublica noted the short time the home spent on the market before Perdue bought it. The home was put on the market on a Wednesday and Perdue agreed to a deal to buy it that Friday before there could be a weekend open house. The agent said it was atypical for a seller to commit to Perdue without holding an open house to find backup options.
Cheney and his wife told ProPublica they had an open house for brokers only before the home was put on the market. Perdue got no special treatment, they said, and they had no direct contact with him.
Perdue’s spokesperson said the senator bought the townhouse above asking price.
“Absolutely nothing about the purchase or sale of the property had anything to do with the senator’s official role, since they did not know the buyers or sellers, there could be no conflict of interest whatsoever,” the spokesperson said.
Doris Burke contributed reporting.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-10--Two Democrats Help Senate Kill Effort to Stop Sale of F-35s and Drones to UAE

Most Senate Republicans and a pair of Democrats teamed up on Wednesday to vote down resolutions aiming to block the Trump White House ’ s lame-duck sale of $ 23 billion worth of F-35s , Reaper drones , and missiles to the United Arab Emirates , ignoring warnings that providing the Middle East nation with more high-tech weaponry would further implicate the U.S. in mass murder of civilians .
With the exception of Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) , every Republican senator present voted against the pair of Democrat-led resolutions .
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema ( D-Ariz. ) joined the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Sen. Mark Kelly ( D-Ariz. ) voted in favor of blocking the F-35 sale but against preventing the sale of Reaper drones to UAE — a partner along with the U.S. in the Saudi-led assault on Yemen .
As HuffPost ’ s Akbar Shahid Ahmed noted , “ the defense unit of military contractor Raytheon — which is crucial to the drones being considered — is based in Arizona , ” a possible reason behind the two Arizona Democrats ’ votes .
The two failed resolutions were sponsored by Sens .
Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-Conn. ) , and Paul .
“ The Senate today faced a clear choice : defend human rights and prevent atrocities against civilians , or roll over to Trump and his corporate cronies .
Many chose the latter , ” Erica Fein , advocacy director at Win Without War , said in a statement .
“ The decision to stand idly by as Trump rams through a last-minute $ 23 billion arms sale is shameful.
” Citing survey data showing overwhelming public opposition to arms sales to the UAE , Fein called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop these sales from moving forward , meet its campaign promise of ending U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen , reset U.S. relations in the region , and restore U.S. credibility as a partner for peace.
” The Trump administration ’ s effort to lock in the massive arms sale just weeks before Inauguration Day comes after the president took credit for brokering a “ peace deal ” between Israel and the UAE in August .
Critics were quick to warn the agreement had absolutely nothing to do with peace , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rush through a sale of “ 50 F-35 aircraft , 18 Reaper drones , and a massive stockpile of missiles ” to the UAE .
Israel lobbied in support of the weapons sale .
Jared Kushner , Trump ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser , was reportedly a key driving force behind the arms deal and recent efforts to prevent the Senate from blocking it .
“ The United States should be working to deescalate conflict in the Middle East , not fueling it by selling more and more weapons to regimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , who voted to stop the sales .
Paul Kawika Martin , senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action , said in a statement late Wednesday that “ Republicans should be ashamed for voting to sell deadly drones and F-35A jets to the United Arab Emirates — a country known for war crimes , human rights abuses , and causing Yemen famine.
” “ These votes send a strong message from Senate Democrats to the Biden and Harris administration to rethink arms sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to countries who may not always hold American interests nor uphold human rights like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia .
”

The Trump administration is pushing to lock in the massive arms sale weeks before Inauguration Day.
Most Senate Republicans and a pair of Democrats teamed up on Wednesday to vote down resolutions aiming to block the Trump White House’s lame-duck sale of $23 billion worth of F-35s, Reaper drones, and missiles to the United Arab Emirates, ignoring warnings that providing the Middle East nation with more high-tech weaponry would further implicate the U.S. in mass murder of civilians.
With the exception of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), every Republican senator present voted against the pair of Democrat-led resolutions. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) joined the GOP in voting against both resolutions, while Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) voted in favor of blocking the F-35 sale but against preventing the sale of Reaper drones to UAE — a partner along with the U.S. in the Saudi-led assault on Yemen.
As HuffPost’s Akbar Shahid Ahmed noted, “the defense unit of military contractor Raytheon — which is crucial to the drones being considered — is based in Arizona,” a possible reason behind the two Arizona Democrats’ votes.
The two failed resolutions were sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Paul.
“The Senate today faced a clear choice: defend human rights and prevent atrocities against civilians, or roll over to Trump and his corporate cronies. Many chose the latter,” Erica Fein, advocacy director at Win Without War, said in a statement. “The decision to stand idly by as Trump rams through a last-minute $23 billion arms sale is shameful.”
Citing survey data showing overwhelming public opposition to arms sales to the UAE, Fein called on the incoming Biden administration to “stop these sales from moving forward, meet its campaign promise of ending U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen, reset U.S. relations in the region, and restore U.S. credibility as a partner for peace.”
Senators had a choice: defend human rights & prevent atrocities against civilians, or give in to Trump & his corporate cronies. Many shamefully chose the latter. But the fight’s not over! A new admin means new chances to stop these sales going forward. https://t.co/i3t0PvQ89j — Win Without War (@WinWithoutWar) December 9, 2020
The Trump administration’s effort to lock in the massive arms sale just weeks before Inauguration Day comes after the president took credit for brokering a “peace deal” between Israel and the UAE in August.
Critics were quick to warn the agreement had absolutely nothing to do with peace, an argument bolstered by the subsequent U.S. attempt to rush through a sale of “50 F-35 aircraft, 18 Reaper drones, and a massive stockpile of missiles” to the UAE. Israel lobbied in support of the weapons sale.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, was reportedly a key driving force behind the arms deal and recent efforts to prevent the Senate from blocking it.
“The United States should be working to deescalate conflict in the Middle East, not fueling it by selling more and more weapons to regimes using them to kill civilians,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted to stop the sales.
Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement late Wednesday that “Republicans should be ashamed for voting to sell deadly drones and F-35A jets to the United Arab Emirates — a country known for war crimes, human rights abuses, and causing Yemen famine.”
“These votes send a strong message from Senate Democrats to the Biden and Harris administration to rethink arms sales,” said Martin, “especially to countries who may not always hold American interests nor uphold human rights like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-11--Cruz Aims to Use Trump’s False Claims of Fraud to Block Biden’s Appointments

Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) indicated this week that Republicans will likely use President Donald Trump ’ s errant claims of election fraud to block confirmations of President-elect Joe Biden ’ s cabinet nominations .
Cruz , while discussing Biden ’ s potential executive appointments , suggested that those nominations could be blocked , with Trump ’ s unsubstantiated assertions of fraud in this year ’ s presidential election providing Republicans the justification .
“ As long as there ’ s litigation ongoing , and the election result is disputed , I do not think you will see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Cruz told Axios on Thursday .
Control of the Senate will be decided by two runoff elections in Georgia early next month .
If Republicans can win just one of those two races , they will remain in control of the upper chamber — giving them the ability to not only block legislation put forward by Biden , but also obstruct any executive and judicial appointments .
Trump ’ s election fraud claims have been proven false , time and again , in fact-checks from news media as well as by judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , for instance , Nevada state District Judge James Russell decried such claims from the Trump campaign and its allies .
“ The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud , ” Russell wrote in his opinion .
Earlier in the month , U.S .
Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas , who was appointed by Trump , also issued a scathing opinion disputing assertions of election fraud .
“ Charges of unfairness are serious .
But calling an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bibas wrote in the court ’ s unanimous decision .
“ Charges require specific allegations and then proof .
We have neither here.
” In spite of failing to win in almost any of the court cases where alleged fraud took place , the president continues to support efforts to undo the results of last month ’ s race — including backing a lawsuit from the state of Texas that makes similar unsubstantiated claims of fraud .
The lawsuit , brought forward by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and submitted to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invalidate the election results in Georgia , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin and Michigan .
The suit also aims to let Republican state legislatures in all four states pick the recipient of their states ’ respective Electoral College votes , a move that would undoubtedly grant Trump another term in office .
Trump asked Cruz on Tuesday whether he would argue that case before the Supreme Court on the president ’ s behalf if the justices decide to hear it .
Cruz reportedly accepted the invitation .
However , many legal experts ( including several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court is very unlikely to accept the case .
“ This one really is a stretch , ” South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman said , adding that he believes there is “ no chance the Supreme Court gets involved with this in any way.
” University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck voiced a similar opinion on the matter as well .
“ Spoiler alert : The Court is *never* going to hear this one , ” he tweeted earlier this week .

There is no evidence of fraud or malfeasance of any kind having affected the 2020 presidential race.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) indicated this week that Republicans will likely use President Donald Trump’s errant claims of election fraud to block confirmations of President-elect Joe Biden’s cabinet nominations.
Cruz, while discussing Biden’s potential executive appointments, suggested that those nominations could be blocked, with Trump’s unsubstantiated assertions of fraud in this year’s presidential election providing Republicans the justification.
“As long as there’s litigation ongoing, and the election result is disputed, I do not think you will see the Senate act to confirm any nominee,” Cruz told Axios on Thursday.
Control of the Senate will be decided by two runoff elections in Georgia early next month. If Republicans can win just one of those two races, they will remain in control of the upper chamber — giving them the ability to not only block legislation put forward by Biden, but also obstruct any executive and judicial appointments.
Trump’s election fraud claims have been proven false, time and again, in fact-checks from news media as well as by judges in courtrooms across the country.
On Friday, for instance, Nevada state District Judge James Russell decried such claims from the Trump campaign and its allies. “The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud,” Russell wrote in his opinion.
Earlier in the month, U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed by Trump, also issued a scathing opinion disputing assertions of election fraud.
“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” Bibas wrote in the court’s unanimous decision. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
In spite of failing to win in almost any of the court cases where alleged fraud took place, the president continues to support efforts to undo the results of last month’s race — including backing a lawsuit from the state of Texas that makes similar unsubstantiated claims of fraud.
The lawsuit, brought forward by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and submitted to the Supreme Court this week, seeks to invalidate the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. The suit also aims to let Republican state legislatures in all four states pick the recipient of their states’ respective Electoral College votes, a move that would undoubtedly grant Trump another term in office.
Trump asked Cruz on Tuesday whether he would argue that case before the Supreme Court on the president’s behalf if the justices decide to hear it. Cruz reportedly accepted the invitation.
However, many legal experts (including several in Texas) have said that the Supreme Court is very unlikely to accept the case.
“This one really is a stretch,” South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman said, adding that he believes there is “no chance the Supreme Court gets involved with this in any way.”
University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck voiced a similar opinion on the matter as well. “Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one,” he tweeted earlier this week.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-11--Trump Recognized Morocco’s Illegal Occupation to Boost the Israeli Occupation

On December 10 , the United States became the only major country to formally recognize Morocco ’ s illegal annexation of Western Sahara , the former Spanish colony forcibly seized by Moroccan forces in 1975 .
Trump ’ s proclamation is directly counter to a series of UN Security Council resolutions and a landmark World Court ruling calling for self-determination .
Trump ’ s decision was a quid pro quo : a reward for Morocco ’ s formal recognition of Israel , a country which is also an occupying power .
Trump had previously broken precedent by recognizing Israel ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Golan Heights and greater Jerusalem .
The U.S. recognition of the annexation of an entire country , which has been recognized as an independent state by no less than 80 countries , is a particularly dangerous precedent .
As with his earlier recognition of Israel ’ s conquests , Trump is effectively renouncing longstanding international legal principles in favor of the right of conquest .
And , since Western Sahara is a full member state of the African Union , Trump is essentially endorsing the conquest of one recognized African state by another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territorial conquests enshrined in the UN Charter which the United States insisted had to be upheld by launching the Gulf War in 1991 , reversing Iraq ’ s conquest of Kuwait .
Now , the United States is essentially saying that an Arab country invading and annexing its small southern neighbor is OK after all .
Trump cites Morocco ’ s “ autonomy plan ” for the territory as “ serious , credible , and realistic ” and “ the ONLY basis for a just and lasting solution ” even though it falls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ autonomy ” and in effect would simply continue the occupation .
Human Rights Watch , Amnesty International and other human right groups have documented the Moroccan occupation forces ’ widespread suppression of peaceful advocates of independence , raising serious questions about what “ autonomy ” under the kingdom would actually look like .
Western Sahara is a sparsely populated territory about the size of Colorado , located on the Atlantic coast in northwestern Africa just south of Morocco .
Traditionally inhabited by nomadic Arab tribes , collectively known as Sahrawis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance to outside domination , their dialect , dress and customs are distinct from most Moroccans .
Spain occupied the territory beginning in the late 1800s and maintained its rule until the mid-1970s , well over a decade after most African countries had achieved their freedom from European colonialism .
In 1973 , the nationalist Polisario Front launched an armed independence struggle against Spain and Madrid eventually promised the people of what was then still known as the Spanish Sahara a referendum on the fate of the territory by the end of 1975 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were brought before the International Court of Justice , which ruled in October of 1975 that — despite pledges of fealty to the Moroccan sultan back in the 19th century by some tribal leaders bordering the territory and close ethnic ties between some Sahrawi and Mauritanian tribes — the right of self-determination was paramount .
A special Visiting Mission from the United Nations engaged in an investigation on the situation in the territory that same year and reported that the vast majority of Sahrawis supported independence under the leadership of the Polisario , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During this same period , Morocco was threatening war with Spain over the territory .
Though the Spaniards had a much stronger military , they were at that time dealing with the terminal illness of their longtime dictator Generalissimo Francisco Franco as well as increasing pressure from the United States , which wanted to back its Moroccan ally King Hassan II and did not want to see the leftist Polisario come to power .
As a result , despite its earlier pledge to hold a referendum with the assumption that power would soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Spain instead agreed in November 1975 to grant administrative control of the territory to Morocco ( and , for a time , Mauritania ) pending an act of self-determination .
It never happened , however .
As Moroccan forces moved into Western Sahara , close to half the population fled the country into neighboring Algeria , which was supportive of the independence struggle against its historic rival .
Morocco rejected a series of unanimous UN Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces and recognition of the Sahrawis ’ right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France , meanwhile , despite voting in favor of these resolutions , blocked the United Nations from enforcing them .
The Moroccan government , through generous housing subsidies , tax breaks , and other benefits , successfully encouraged tens of thousands of Moroccan settlers to move into the parts of Western Sahara under the kingdom ’ s control .
These Moroccan settlers now outnumber the remaining Sahrawis indigenous to the territory by a ratio of more than 3:1 .
The Moroccan government also invested heavily in infrastructure development along with internal security to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to penetrate into Moroccan-controlled territory , the Polisario continued regular assaults against Moroccan occupation forces stationed along the wall until 1991 , when the United Nations ordered a ceasefire to be monitored by a UN peacekeeping force known as MINURSO .
The agreement included provisions for a return of Sahrawi refugees to Western Sahara followed by a UN-supervised referendum on the fate of the territory , with the Sahrawis native to Western Sahara being given the choice of voting in favor of either independence or integration with Morocco .
Neither the repatriation nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the Moroccan insistence that Moroccan settlers and other Moroccan citizens whom it claimed had tribal links to the Western Sahara also be allowed to vote .
A compromise referendum plan put forward by the United Nations in 2003 under the secretary general ’ s special envoy James Baker was accepted by the Polisario but rejected by Morocco , which has instead put forward its controversial plan for limited autonomy for the region .
Though the Bush and Obama administrations expressed a willingness to seriously consider Morocco ’ s proposal , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option nor did they formally withdraw their support for a referendum .
After waiting 29 years for a referendum that never came and following a series of Moroccan ceasefire violations and other provocations , the Polisario resumed its armed struggle just last month .
Disturbingly , within hours of Trump ’ s December 10 announcement , word came of a U.S. decision to sell at least four sophisticated large aerial drones to Morocco .
U.S. laws prohibit such weapons sales to invading armies .
However , with the U.S. recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the territory , the occupation has become , in the eyes of Washington , a civil war between a recognized government and a secessionist movement , which could also pave the way for further U.S. intervention .
In both the Israeli and Moroccan occupations , there has been bipartisan support for the occupiers , but previous administrations recognized the dangerous legal precedent of formal recognition .
Trump , in both Palestine and Western Sahara , has essentially made official what was essentially U.S. policy anyway .
For decades , both Republican and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor Israel was obligated to withdraw their occupying forces , instead allowing the occupying powers to engage in an endless “ peace process ” with those under occupation who have no leverage to change the equation .
In this way , the U.S. has allowed both occupiers to continue colonizing their occupied territories and consolidating their control .
As a result , Trump ’ s insistence that the Golan Heights , greater Jerusalem and Western Sahara are no longer negotiable simply codifies what the occupying powers had been saying for decades , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do otherwise .
Once he becomes president , Biden could reverse Trump ’ s recognition of the Moroccan annexation .
However , since this would probably mean that Morocco would then renounce its recognition of Israel , Biden will likely find himself under considerable pressure not to do so .
Trump ’ s dangerous act of recognition highlights the fact that there are two major occupations in the Arab world .
The Sahrawis , like the Palestinians , deserve their freedom .
Given the critical role the United States is playing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a special obligation to force a change of policy .
Such activism in the 1990s played a key role in ending U.S. support for Indonesia ’ s occupation of East Timor .
Americans must once again pressure our government to cease supporting brutal occupations .

Part of the Series Struggle and Solidarity: Writing Toward Palestinian Liberation
On December 10, the United States became the only country to formally recognize Morocco’s illegal annexation of Western Sahara, the former Spanish colony forcibly seized by Moroccan forces in 1975. Trump’s proclamation is directly counter to a series of UN Security Council resolutions and a landmark World Court ruling calling for self-determination.
Trump’s decision was a quid pro quo: a reward for Morocco’s formal recognition of Israel, a country which is also an occupying power. Trump had previously broken precedent by recognizing Israel’s illegal annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights and greater Jerusalem. The U.S. recognition of the annexation of an entire country, which has been recognized as an independent state by no less than 80 countries, is a particularly dangerous precedent. As with his earlier recognition of Israel’s conquests, Trump is effectively renouncing longstanding international legal principles in favor of the right of conquest.
And, since Western Sahara is a full member state of the African Union, Trump is essentially endorsing the conquest of one recognized African state by another. It was the prohibition of such territorial conquests enshrined in the UN Charter which the United States insisted had to be upheld by launching the Gulf War in 1991, reversing Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait. Now, the United States is essentially saying that an Arab country invading and annexing its small southern neighbor is OK after all.
Trump cites Morocco’s “autonomy plan” for the territory as “serious, credible, and realistic” and “the ONLY basis for a just and lasting solution” even though it falls far short of the international legal definition of “autonomy” and in effect would simply continue the occupation. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human right groups have documented the Moroccan occupation forces’ widespread suppression of peaceful advocates of independence, raising serious questions about what “autonomy” under the kingdom would actually look like.
Western Sahara is a sparsely populated territory about the size of Colorado, located on the Atlantic coast in northwestern Africa just south of Morocco. Traditionally inhabited by nomadic Arab tribes, collectively known as Sahrawis, and famous for their long history of resistance to outside domination, their dialect, dress and customs are distinct from most Moroccans. Spain occupied the territory beginning in the late 1800s and maintained its rule until the mid-1970s, well over a decade after most African countries had achieved their freedom from European colonialism.
In 1973, the nationalist Polisario Front launched an armed independence struggle against Spain and Madrid eventually promised the people of what was then still known as the Spanish Sahara a referendum on the fate of the territory by the end of 1975. Irredentist claims by Morocco and Mauritania were brought before the International Court of Justice, which ruled in October of 1975 that — despite pledges of fealty to the Moroccan sultan back in the 19th century by some tribal leaders bordering the territory and close ethnic ties between some Sahrawi and Mauritanian tribes — the right of self-determination was paramount. A special Visiting Mission from the United Nations engaged in an investigation on the situation in the territory that same year and reported that the vast majority of Sahrawis supported independence under the leadership of the Polisario, not integration with Morocco or Mauritania.
Within hours of Trump’s December 10 announcement, word came of a U.S. decision to sell at least four sophisticated large aerial drones to Morocco.
During this same period, Morocco was threatening war with Spain over the territory. Though the Spaniards had a much stronger military, they were at that time dealing with the terminal illness of their longtime dictator Generalissimo Francisco Franco as well as increasing pressure from the United States, which wanted to back its Moroccan ally King Hassan II and did not want to see the leftist Polisario come to power. As a result, despite its earlier pledge to hold a referendum with the assumption that power would soon thereafter be handed over to the Polisario, Spain instead agreed in November 1975 to grant administrative control of the territory to Morocco (and, for a time, Mauritania) pending an act of self-determination. It never happened, however.
As Moroccan forces moved into Western Sahara, close to half the population fled the country into neighboring Algeria, which was supportive of the independence struggle against its historic rival. Morocco rejected a series of unanimous UN Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces and recognition of the Sahrawis’ right of self-determination. The United States and France, meanwhile, despite voting in favor of these resolutions, blocked the United Nations from enforcing them.
The Polisario continued to resist the Moroccan takeover and by 1982 had driven Moroccan forces out of nearly 85% of the territory. Over the next four years, however, the tide of the war was reversed in Morocco’s favor thanks to the United States and France dramatically increasing their support for the Moroccan war effort, with U.S. Special Forces providing important training for the Moroccan army in counter-insurgency tactics and Saudi Arabia contributing financially to the war effort. In addition, the Americans and French helped Morocco construct an 800-mile “wall,” primarily consisting of two heavily-fortified parallel sand berms, which eventually shut off more than three-quarters of Western Sahara — including virtually all the territory’s major towns and natural resources — from the Polisario.
The Moroccan government, through generous housing subsidies, tax breaks, and other benefits, successfully encouraged tens of thousands of Moroccan settlers to move into the parts of Western Sahara under the kingdom’s control. These Moroccan settlers now outnumber the remaining Sahrawis indigenous to the territory by a ratio of more than 3:1. The Moroccan government also invested heavily in infrastructure development along with internal security to suppress pro-independence activists.
Trump’s insistence that the Golan Heights, greater Jerusalem, and Western Sahara are no longer negotiable codifies what the occupying powers had been saying for decades.
While rarely able to penetrate into Moroccan-controlled territory, the Polisario continued regular assaults against Moroccan occupation forces stationed along the wall until 1991, when the United Nations ordered a ceasefire to be monitored by a UN peacekeeping force known as MINURSO. The agreement included provisions for a return of Sahrawi refugees to Western Sahara followed by a UN-supervised referendum on the fate of the territory, with the Sahrawis native to Western Sahara being given the choice of voting in favor of either independence or integration with Morocco. Neither the repatriation nor the referendum took place, however, due to the Moroccan insistence that Moroccan settlers and other Moroccan citizens whom it claimed had tribal links to the Western Sahara also be allowed to vote.
A compromise referendum plan put forward by the United Nations in 2003 under the secretary general’s special envoy James Baker was accepted by the Polisario but rejected by Morocco, which has instead put forward its controversial plan for limited autonomy for the region. Though the Bush and Obama administrations expressed a willingness to seriously consider Morocco’s proposal, they did not see it as the only option nor did they formally withdraw their support for a referendum.
After waiting 29 years for a referendum that never came and following a series of Moroccan ceasefire violations and other provocations, the Polisario resumed its armed struggle just last month.
Disturbingly, within hours of Trump’s December 10 announcement, word came of a U.S. decision to sell at least four sophisticated large aerial drones to Morocco. U.S. laws prohibit such weapons sales to invading armies. However, with the U.S. recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, including the Polisario-controlled segments of the territory, the occupation has become, in the eyes of Washington, a civil war between a recognized government and a secessionist movement, which could also pave the way for further U.S. intervention.
In both the Israeli and Moroccan occupations, there has been bipartisan support for the occupiers, but previous administrations recognized the dangerous legal precedent of formal recognition. Trump, in both Palestine and Western Sahara, has essentially made official what was essentially U.S. policy anyway. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations have insisted that neither Morocco nor Israel was obligated to withdraw their occupying forces, instead allowing the occupying powers to engage in an endless “peace process” with those under occupation who have no leverage to change the equation. In this way, the U.S. has allowed both occupiers to continue colonizing their occupied territories and consolidating their control.
As a result, Trump’s insistence that the Golan Heights, greater Jerusalem and Western Sahara are no longer negotiable simply codifies what the occupying powers had been saying for decades, while receiving no pressure from the United States to do otherwise.
Americans must once again pressure our government to cease supporting brutal occupations.
Once he becomes president, Biden could reverse Trump’s recognition of the Moroccan annexation. However, since this would probably mean that Morocco would then renounce its recognition of Israel, Biden will likely find himself under considerable pressure not to do so.
Trump’s dangerous act of recognition highlights the fact that there are two major occupations in the Arab world. The Sahrawis, like the Palestinians, deserve their freedom. Given the critical role the United States is playing in making these occupations possible, Americans have a special obligation to force a change of policy. Such activism in the 1990s played a key role in ending U.S. support for Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor. Americans must once again pressure our government to cease supporting brutal occupations.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-11--Biden’s Pick of Tom Vilsack to Head USDA Is a Missed Opportunity

Progressives and environmental and labor activists are objecting to President-elect Joe Biden ’ s selection of Tom Vilsack to be his agriculture secretary , reprising the role he held in the Obama administration .
Those opposed to Vilsack ’ s nomination say he has a record of supporting corporate interests over those of farmers , loosening regulations and backing genetically modified , herbicide-resistant crops .
The NAACP has pointed to Vilsack ’ s role in firing former USDA official Shirley Sherrod in 2010 as disqualifying .
Biden ’ s pick of Vilsack is a missed opportunity to reshape the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists .
“ Going back to a secretary of the past is not the way to strike in a new direction .
That is status quo.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to look now , speaking of the United States , at how President-elect Joe Biden ’ s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture , the USDA , could play a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity during the pandemic , and how the incoming administration responds to the climate crisis .
Ricardo Salvador , you recently co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times headlined “ Goodbye , U.S.D.A.
, Hello , Department of Food and Well-Being.
” You wrote this before Biden picked former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as his secretary of agriculture instead of Ohio Congressmember Marcia Fudge , who he chose to head housing and urban development .
Environmental and civil rights groups had urged Biden to pick Fudge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to head the USDA , citing her dedication to preserving its anti-hunger programs , like SNAP — that ’ s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which makes up about half the budget .
As many as one in four Americans use at least one of USDA ’ s food aid programs .
Fudge ’ s supporters included South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn , another key backer of Biden during the primaries , who said , quote , “ It ’ s one thing to grow food , but another to dispense it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Marcia Fudge.
” But Biden chose Vilsack , who became CEO of the U.S .
Dairy Export Council after he left government , a group backed by the dairy industry .
If you , Ricardo Salvador , could talk about the significance of the USDA and what has been Vilsack ’ s role ?
I mean , he ran it throughout the Obama two-term tenure .
RICARDO SALVADOR : Yeah .
Well , the first note that I should make is that it ’ s been reported widely in the media that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
I want to note that there ’ s been no official announcement of that , so that there ’ s still hope that that decision could be influenced .
But to your point , there would be implications of this .
We are living in a historical moment .
It isn ’ t just that the pandemic that we ’ ve been discussing has disrupted the food system , as well as other systems across the planet .
It ’ s that we ’ re also in the middle of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is also that we are living at a time when the public at large is beginning to doubt the foundations of modernity , which is the scientific approach to things .
And also we are at a time where there is a massive racial reckoning , which is connecting the history , the foundations of today ’ s modern economies to exploitation .
And at this historical moment , any change in administration is an opportunity to strike in a new direction .
So , obviously , going back to a secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to strike in a new direction .
That is status quo .
And I need to be clear that while I acknowledge that is a very difficult job , and Secretary Vilsack did as good a job as one could expect during the time that he was in , the blemishes in his administration have to do with the issues that have to change about the department .
There was manipulation of data in reports that his administration issued purporting that African American farmers had been better served during his administration .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And by the way , the significance of this is that this is a department that has actually had to settle legal lawsuits for billions of dollars , acknowledging that they have actively discriminated against African American , Native American , Latinx and women farmers and ranchers .
Who does that leave , that they ’ ve been preferentially serving since being established in 1862 ?
The farming population in the United States is dominantly white .
It ’ s unnaturally white .
It ’ s 96 % white .
And so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have an institution with the profile of serving preferentially a very small sliver of the entire population .
Its original remit was to be a people ’ s department .
And this was at a time , 1862 , the date of its founding , when the majority of the population were rural and when there was a significant number of people that derived their livelihood from farming itself .
So it did make sense that at that time your primary stakeholders would be farmers .
But it ’ s 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 million farmers still ply that trade .
We all depend on them .
But the country is 320 million people , and we all have a stake in the food system .
It determines whether we ’ re healthy or not .
It determines whether we ’ re susceptible to diseases like the COVID pandemic and so on .
So the stakeholders in USDA are all of us .
That “ A ” doesn ’ t stand for agribusiness , which is the way that secretaries of agriculture normally behave .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whom I respect , but who has come from four years of working for agribusiness , as you just noted .
And so , that ’ s not the profile of somebody that is going to be able to be independent of agribusiness and serve a much broader set of public interests , which you ’ ve listed .
We all have a stake in having physical and economic access to a nourishing system that is equitable not only in terms of who gets to eat , but also in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to participate in the business of food and agriculture .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Ricardo , before we conclude , you point out in that New York Times piece the question of food insecurity in the U.S .
Ten percent of households were already food insecure before the pandemic .
That number has now doubled .
You also say that nearly 75 % of Americans are clinically overweight or obese , making them , of course , more vulnerable to COVID-19 , in addition to other health problems .
So , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hunger , and what this phenomenon in America , which is , of course , in the U.S. , the richest country in the world — what it reveals about the food system here and the failures of the USDA as it ’ s been constituted ?
RICARDO SALVADOR : Yeah .
Clinically , you ’ re suffering from hunger when you have caloric deficiency or some other nutrient deficiency that is affecting your ability to thrive .
It will stunt the growth of children , for instance .
And this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually measure that hunger is occurring .
However , food insecurity is rampant and has just as profound an effect .
We define that as basically the percentage of your time that you spend worrying about where your next meal is going to come from .
And if you ’ re in that population , then , obviously , this is going to take major mind share , and you will not be able to flourish , because the primary concern is how you ’ re going to be able to meet your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so , the fact that in a wealthy country like the United States we should have , prior to the pandemic , about 10 % of the population , and now about 20 % of the population , that are dealing with food insecurity should be a national shame .
This situation just should not occur .
Now , what it reveals , in answer to your question , has to do with who these people are .
When you look at who they are , one of the things that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States we call the people of color .
This means other than the descendants of northern Europeans that settled the country a few hundred years ago .
Just to summarize , almost glibly , a lot of history , what this population distribution represents is that the modern structure of the nation — its laws , its government , its business models — were essentially set up for those settlers and their descendants , and everybody else here has a history of either having been here and being displaced or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to perform brutal menial labor .
And so , some set of the population , over generations , has been having access to land , access to government programs , access to credit , access to the best education and building their wealth and well-being , and another set of the population has experienced exactly the opposite of that , being driven off of land , their ancestors experiencing genocide , people not having access to government programs , to loans , credit , to real estate .
They only get access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so , therefore , what that means is they are losing wealth across the generations .
So , if you go back to the formula for hunger that I described earlier , this tracks poverty .
And so , the poorer people in the United States are disproportionately people of color .
The white poverty rate in the United States , again , prior to the pandemic , runs about 9 % .
The poverty rate among people of color in the United States is double of that , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is where you find primarily the majority of the hungry people in the United States .
It has to do with the history of the nation .
And as I mentioned earlier , we ’ re living at a moment in racial reckoning , and we need to overcome that history by directly addressing the inequities that make some of us poor , and therefore make some of us especially susceptible to food insecurity and to hunger .
I ’ ll just repeat , these are the results of actual human decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s land , to kill people , to drive them into reservations , to enslave people , to make some people who are essential for the food system to work undocumented so that we can exploit them and abuse them .
And these are things that we can change and that we must change .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , this is an ongoing conversation .
Ricardo Salvador , thanks so much for being with us , director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists , recently co-authored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which we will link to , headlined “ Goodbye , U.S.D.A.
, Hello , Department of Food and Well-Being.
” Up next , our guest says Ethiopia is on the verge of a civil war .
We ’ ll talk about what ’ s happening in the Tigray region .
Stay with us .

Progressives and environmental and labor activists are objecting to President-elect Joe Biden’s selection of Tom Vilsack to be his agriculture secretary, reprising the role he held in the Obama administration. Those opposed to Vilsack’s nomination say he has a record of supporting corporate interests over those of farmers, loosening regulations and backing genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops. The NAACP has pointed to Vilsack’s role in firing former USDA official Shirley Sherrod in 2010 as disqualifying. Biden’s pick of Vilsack is a missed opportunity to reshape the U.S. Department of Agriculture, says Ricardo Salvador, director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Going back to a secretary of the past is not the way to strike in a new direction. That is status quo.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to look now, speaking of the United States, at how President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the USDA, could play a major role in that issue of hunger, feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity during the pandemic, and how the incoming administration responds to the climate crisis.
Ricardo Salvador, you recently co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times headlined “Goodbye, U.S.D.A., Hello, Department of Food and Well-Being.” You wrote this before Biden picked former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as his secretary of agriculture instead of Ohio Congressmember Marcia Fudge, who he chose to head housing and urban development.
Environmental and civil rights groups had urged Biden to pick Fudge, who’s African American, to head the USDA, citing her dedication to preserving its anti-hunger programs, like SNAP — that’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which makes up about half the budget. As many as one in four Americans use at least one of USDA’s food aid programs. Fudge’s supporters included South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn, another key backer of Biden during the primaries, who said, quote, “It’s one thing to grow food, but another to dispense it, and nobody would be better at that than Marcia Fudge.” But Biden chose Vilsack, who became CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council after he left government, a group backed by the dairy industry.
If you, Ricardo Salvador, could talk about the significance of the USDA and what has been Vilsack’s role? I mean, he ran it throughout the Obama two-term tenure.
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah. Well, the first note that I should make is that it’s been reported widely in the media that that will be the pick of the administration. I want to note that there’s been no official announcement of that, so that there’s still hope that that decision could be influenced.
But to your point, there would be implications of this. We are living in a historical moment. It isn’t just that the pandemic that we’ve been discussing has disrupted the food system, as well as other systems across the planet. It’s that we’re also in the middle of an attack on democracy around the planet. It is also that we are living at a time when the public at large is beginning to doubt the foundations of modernity, which is the scientific approach to things. And also we are at a time where there is a massive racial reckoning, which is connecting the history, the foundations of today’s modern economies to exploitation. And at this historical moment, any change in administration is an opportunity to strike in a new direction. So, obviously, going back to a secretary of the past is not the way to strike in a new direction. That is status quo.
And I need to be clear that while I acknowledge that is a very difficult job, and Secretary Vilsack did as good a job as one could expect during the time that he was in, the blemishes in his administration have to do with the issues that have to change about the department. There was manipulation of data in reports that his administration issued purporting that African American farmers had been better served during his administration. We now know that is not true. And by the way, the significance of this is that this is a department that has actually had to settle legal lawsuits for billions of dollars, acknowledging that they have actively discriminated against African American, Native American, Latinx and women farmers and ranchers. Who does that leave, that they’ve been preferentially serving since being established in 1862? The farming population in the United States is dominantly white. It’s unnaturally white. It’s 96% white.
And so, in the 21st century, we can’t have an institution with the profile of serving preferentially a very small sliver of the entire population. Its original remit was to be a people’s department. And this was at a time, 1862, the date of its founding, when the majority of the population were rural and when there was a significant number of people that derived their livelihood from farming itself. So it did make sense that at that time your primary stakeholders would be farmers. But it’s 2021. In the United States, nominally 2 million farmers still ply that trade. We all depend on them. But the country is 320 million people, and we all have a stake in the food system. It determines whether we’re healthy or not. It determines whether we’re susceptible to diseases like the COVID pandemic and so on.
So the stakeholders in USDA are all of us. That “A” doesn’t stand for agribusiness, which is the way that secretaries of agriculture normally behave. And this is a secretary, Mr. Vilsack, whom I respect, but who has come from four years of working for agribusiness, as you just noted. And so, that’s not the profile of somebody that is going to be able to be independent of agribusiness and serve a much broader set of public interests, which you’ve listed. We all have a stake in having physical and economic access to a nourishing system that is equitable not only in terms of who gets to eat, but also in terms of who gets to farm, who gets to participate in the business of food and agriculture.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ricardo, before we conclude, you point out in that New York Times piece the question of food insecurity in the U.S. Ten percent of households were already food insecure before the pandemic. That number has now doubled. You also say that nearly 75% of Americans are clinically overweight or obese, making them, of course, more vulnerable to COVID-19, in addition to other health problems. So, could you explain the difference between food insecurity and hunger, and what this phenomenon in America, which is, of course, in the U.S., the richest country in the world — what it reveals about the food system here and the failures of the USDA as it’s been constituted?
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah. Clinically, you’re suffering from hunger when you have caloric deficiency or some other nutrient deficiency that is affecting your ability to thrive. It will stunt the growth of children, for instance. And this is one of the ways in which we actually measure that hunger is occurring.
However, food insecurity is rampant and has just as profound an effect. We define that as basically the percentage of your time that you spend worrying about where your next meal is going to come from. And if you’re in that population, then, obviously, this is going to take major mind share, and you will not be able to flourish, because the primary concern is how you’re going to be able to meet your nutritional needs, your food needs.
And so, the fact that in a wealthy country like the United States we should have, prior to the pandemic, about 10% of the population, and now about 20% of the population, that are dealing with food insecurity should be a national shame. This situation just should not occur.
Now, what it reveals, in answer to your question, has to do with who these people are. When you look at who they are, one of the things that you discover is that they are disproportionately what in the United States we call the people of color. This means other than the descendants of northern Europeans that settled the country a few hundred years ago. Just to summarize, almost glibly, a lot of history, what this population distribution represents is that the modern structure of the nation — its laws, its government, its business models — were essentially set up for those settlers and their descendants, and everybody else here has a history of either having been here and being displaced or else having been brought here in order to perform brutal menial labor. And so, some set of the population, over generations, has been having access to land, access to government programs, access to credit, access to the best education and building their wealth and well-being, and another set of the population has experienced exactly the opposite of that, being driven off of land, their ancestors experiencing genocide, people not having access to government programs, to loans, credit, to real estate. They only get access to second-grade education — or, second-rate education. And so, therefore, what that means is they are losing wealth across the generations.
So, if you go back to the formula for hunger that I described earlier, this tracks poverty. And so, the poorer people in the United States are disproportionately people of color. The white poverty rate in the United States, again, prior to the pandemic, runs about 9%. The poverty rate among people of color in the United States is double of that, at least double of that. And so, this is where you find primarily the majority of the hungry people in the United States. It has to do with the history of the nation. And as I mentioned earlier, we’re living at a moment in racial reckoning, and we need to overcome that history by directly addressing the inequities that make some of us poor, and therefore make some of us especially susceptible to food insecurity and to hunger.
I’ll just repeat, these are the results of actual human decisions, decisions to appropriate somebody else’s land, to kill people, to drive them into reservations, to enslave people, to make some people who are essential for the food system to work undocumented so that we can exploit them and abuse them. And these are things that we can change and that we must change.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, this is an ongoing conversation. Ricardo Salvador, thanks so much for being with us, director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, recently co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times, which we will link to, headlined “Goodbye, U.S.D.A., Hello, Department of Food and Well-Being.”
Up next, our guest says Ethiopia is on the verge of a civil war. We’ll talk about what’s happening in the Tigray region. Stay with us.