Eliana Willis

More stories

  • 188 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    ‘Do you believe this?’: New video shows how Nancy Pelosi took charge in Capitol riot

    ‘Do you believe this?’: New video shows how Nancy Pelosi took charge in Capitol riotHouse speaker continued to try to find a way for House and Senate to reconvene despite turmoilNew footage of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol shows House speaker Nancy Pelosi calmly trying to take charge of the situation as she sheltered at Fort McNair, two miles south of the Capitol. “There has to be some way,” she told colleagues, “we can maintain the sense that people have that there is some security or some confidence that government can function and that you can elect the president of the United States.” Then an unidentified voice interjected with alarming news: lawmakers on the House floor had begun putting on teargas masks in preparation for a breach. Pelosi asked the woman to repeat what she said.Capitol attack panel votes to subpoena Trump – ‘the central cause of January 6’Read more“Do you believe this?” Pelosi said to another Democratic leader, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. The footage was from about 2.45pm, when rioters had already disrupted the planned certification of the 2020 presidential election results. It would be hours before the building was secure. Never-before-seen video footage played Thursday by the House of Representatives select committee investigating last year’s riot shows how Pelosi and other leaders, including Republican allies of Donald Trump, responded to the insurrection. The recordings offer a rare glimpse into the real-time reactions of the most powerful members of Congress as they scrambled to drum up support from all parts of the government, including from agencies seemingly ill prepared for the chaos, and vented anger over a president whose conduct they felt had endangered their lives. In the videos, Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer negotiate with governors and defence officials to try to get the national guard to the Capitol as police were being brutally beaten outside the building. The deployment of the guard was delayed for hours as Trump stood by and did little to stop the violence of his supporters. The footage, recorded by Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, a documentary film-maker, was shown during the committee’s 10th hearing as an illustration of the president’s inaction in the face of the grave danger posed by the rioters. “As the president watched the bloody attack unfold on Fox News from his dining room, members of Congress and other government officials stepped into the gigantic leadership void created by the president’s chilling and steady passivity that day,” said Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, a committee member. The concerns were not theoretical. At roughly 3pm, as a Trump loyalist outside Pelosi’s office pointed her finger and shouted, “Bring her out now!” and, “We’re coming in if you don’t bring her out!” the speaker was in a room with Schumer, who said: “I’m gonna call up the effin’ secretary of DoD.”As the violence persisted at the Capitol – “Officer down, get him up,” a voice could be heard bellowing in one clip shown by the committee – the leaders kept making calls from Fort McNair. One went to Virginia governor Ralph Northam about the possibility of help from the Virginia national guard, with Pelosi narrating the events based on what she saw from television news footage. An angrier call followed with Jeffrey Rosen, the then acting attorney general. Days earlier, and unbeknownst at the time to Congress or to the public, Rosen and colleagues had fended off a slapdash attempt by Trump to replace him with a subordinate eager to challenge the election results. On that day, though, Schumer and Pelosi sat shoulder-to-shoulder on the couch and laid bare their frustrations with the country’s top law enforcement official.Throughout the footage, Pelosi maintains her composure, barely raising her voice as she urges Rosen, and later vice-president Mike Pence and others, to send help and tries to work out a way for the House and Senate to reconvene. “They’re breaking the law in many different ways,” Pelosi said to Rosen. “And quite frankly, much of it at the instigation of the president of the United States.” Schumer weighed in too: “Yeah, why don’t you get the president to tell them to leave the Capitol, Mr attorney-general, in your law enforcement responsibility? A public statement they should all leave.” It wasn’t until the evening that the Capitol would be cleared and work would resume. The news that Congress would be able to reconvene to finish its work in certifying the election results was delivered to the congressional leaders not by Trump but by Pence. The House January 6 committee voted unanimously Thursday to subpoena Trump, demanding his personal testimony as it unveiled startling new video of close aides describing his multi-part plan to overturn his 2020 election loss that led to his supporters assault on the Capitol.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpChuck SchumerUS politicsNancy PelosinewsReuse this content More

  • 175 Shares149 Views

    in Elections

    New York attorney general files motion to stop Trump’s ‘continued fraudulent practices’ – live

    New York attorney general Letitia James today accused Donald Trump and the Trump organization of trying to evade her investigation into their business practices by taking steps to move assets out of her reach and avoiding her attempts to serve court documents.James last month announced a civil fraud suit against the former president and three of his children over accusations they falsely inflated Trump’s net worth to enrich themselves and secure loans on better terms. The suit added to the mounting legal threats against the former president, who is also under federal investigation for his role in the January 6 insurrection and the government secrets founds at his Mar-a-Lago resort.In a just-released statement, James said she has asked a judge to approve several steps “to stop Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization’s ongoing fraudulent scheme and ensure funds are available to satisfy any disgorgement award.”“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility. Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules,” James said.Among the measures James said Trump and his business have taken is incorporating a new company in Delaware on the day the lawsuit was filed. The district attorney said the Trumps could move their assets to that business from New York, in a bid to stymie her case. James wants the court to block any such transfers, as well as appoint an independent monitor that would track Trump’s financial disclosures.She also asked for permission to serve court documents to Donald and Eric Trump electronically “as both defendants and their counsels have refused to accept service of the complaints for almost a month.”New York civil fraud suit could bring down the Trump OrganizationRead moreThe Guardian’s David Smith has a look at what to expect today during what is likely to be the last public hearing of the January 6 committee, which will focus squarely on Trump’s actions as the Capitol was attacked:The ninth and possibly final hearing of the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will focus on Donald Trump’s “state of mind” as the insurrection unfolded.The House of Representatives select committee will reconvene in Washington at 1pm on Thursday after a two-and-a-half month break, and is expected to present new video footage showing efforts to respond to the violence as it was unfolding.“There is going to be some discussion of events that took place prior to election day and there’s going to be some looking at events that took place after January 6,” said an aide to the committee, who did not wish to be named. “We’re going to bring a particular focus on the president’s state of mind and his involvement in these events as they unfold.“So what you’re going to see is a synthesis of some evidence we’ve already presented with that new, never-before-seen information to illustrate Donald Trump’s centrality to the scheme from the time prior to the election.”January 6 panel’s next hearing will focus on Trump’s ‘state of mind’ during attack Read moreNew York attorney general Letitia James today accused Donald Trump and the Trump organization of trying to evade her investigation into their business practices by taking steps to move assets out of her reach and avoiding her attempts to serve court documents.James last month announced a civil fraud suit against the former president and three of his children over accusations they falsely inflated Trump’s net worth to enrich themselves and secure loans on better terms. The suit added to the mounting legal threats against the former president, who is also under federal investigation for his role in the January 6 insurrection and the government secrets founds at his Mar-a-Lago resort.In a just-released statement, James said she has asked a judge to approve several steps “to stop Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization’s ongoing fraudulent scheme and ensure funds are available to satisfy any disgorgement award.”“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility. Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules,” James said.Among the measures James said Trump and his business have taken is incorporating a new company in Delaware on the day the lawsuit was filed. The district attorney said the Trumps could move their assets to that business from New York, in a bid to stymie her case. James wants the court to block any such transfers, as well as appoint an independent monitor that would track Trump’s financial disclosures.She also asked for permission to serve court documents to Donald and Eric Trump electronically “as both defendants and their counsels have refused to accept service of the complaints for almost a month.”New York civil fraud suit could bring down the Trump OrganizationRead moreA big increase in monthly social security payments might sound like a good thing, but keep in mind, the government is doing it only because inflation is so high.And today began with word that the consumer price wave didn’t subside much in September. Year-on-year, prices rose 8.2%, below the high of 9.1% in June but not much of a change from the 8.3% level in August. Monthly price growth actually accelerated in September, led by costs for food and, more worryingly, housing, one of the most potent contributors to inflation overall.There will be a few consequences to this report. First of all, it will likely reinforce the Federal Reserve’s conviction that it needs to continue raising interest rates to quell demand and stop prices from rising so much. But it takes time to know the impact of rate increases, and the worry is that the central bank will overdo it and tighten conditions so much that the economy heads into a recession. Indeed, the head of the largest US investment bank warned as much earlier this week, though the Fed is far from the only threat to the economy right now.Then there’s the impact on president Joe Biden and the Democratic party at large. As the saying goes, the buck stops with him, and polls have made clear voters care deeply about the state of the economy – and aren’t a huge fan of his handling of it. Consider this one from Monmouth University released earlier this month, which found inflation to be the top priority among voters surveyed, and Biden getting low marks for his handling of it.If the 8 November midterms result in a wipeout for Democrats in Congress and statehouses nationwide, don’t be surprised if that dynamic turns out to be the reason why. US is headed for a recession, says head of JP Morgan Chase bank: ‘This is serious’Read moreGood morning, US politics blog readers. Americans don’t have many nice things to say about the record streak of inflation that has beset the economy since the start of last year, but for retirees, it’s come with one benefit: larger social security payments. The government announced today it would raise monthly payments from the retirement program by 8.7%, its largest increase in 40 years, to offset rising prices for food, gasoline and other essentials. Older people tend to be reliable voters, so this may have knock-on effects for the midterms, where inflation is seen as a liability for president Joe Biden and the Democrats running nationwide to help him carry out his agenda.Today is going to be a busy one!
    The January 6 committee will hold its ninth and potentially last public hearing at 1 pm eastern time today, focusing on what Donald Trump knew before and during the deadly insurrection at the Capitol.
    Consumer price data just released shows inflation remaining stubbornly high in September, bad news for the US economy and for Wall Street especially.
    Biden is in Los Angeles, where he will promote his infrastructure law announced last year and fundraise for Democrats. More

  • 175 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    January 6 panel’s next hearing will focus on Trump’s ‘state of mind’ during attack

    January 6 panel’s next hearing will focus on Trump’s ‘state of mind’ during attack House select committee will reconvene Thursday with new video footage showing measures to respond during violence at Capitol The ninth and possibly final hearing of the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will focus on Donald Trump’s “state of mind” as the insurrection unfolded.The House of Representatives select committee will reconvene in Washington at 1pm on Thursday after a two-and-a-half month break, and is expected to present new video footage showing efforts to respond to the violence as it was unfolding.House January 6 committee postpones public hearing, citing Hurricane IanRead more“There is going to be some discussion of events that took place prior to election day and there’s going to be some looking at events that took place after January 6,” said an aide to the committee, who did not wish to be named. “We’re going to bring a particular focus on the president’s state of mind and his involvement in these events as they unfold.“So what you’re going to see is a synthesis of some evidence we’ve already presented with that new, never-before-seen information to illustrate Donald Trump’s centrality to the scheme from the time prior to the election.”The committee surpassed many observers’ expectations over the summer with a series of televised hearings that put Trump at the heart of an attempted coup – a premeditated assault on American democracy that sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election.On Thursday it will seek to reclaim the spotlight less than a month before congressional midterm elections, in which hundreds of Republicans who back Trump’s false claim of election fraud are running for office.The committee will present documentary evidence that includes information from hundreds of thousands of pages that the Secret Service handed over in response to a subpoena. The records will show how Trump – who encouraged his supporters to “fight like hell” in a speech on the morning of January 6 – was repeatedly alerted to danger yet still tried to stoke the violence, the Washington Post reported.Unlike previous hearings there will be no live witnesses, the aide said, but there will be new witness testimony, including from individuals who have not been heard from before. It is unclear whether that will include Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a conservative activist and wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. Her interview by the panel last month was transcribed but not videotaped.Thursday’s hearing is expected to last about two and half hours and include statements from the panel’s chair, Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Liz Cheney – nearing the end of her tenure in Congress after losing a Republican primary race in Wyoming – as well as all seven other members of the committee, each presenting different elements of the evidence.Whereas past hearings concentrated on a particular topic, earning comparisons with TV crime dramas or podcasts, this one will take “a step back” and examine “the entire plan”. But in a background briefing with reporters, the aide denied it amounted to a closing argument, saying it was difficult to know the select committee’s schedule going forward.“The investigation is ongoing and, of course, at some point there will be a comprehensive report released which will present the committee’s findings in a more complete manner. That work goes on. I would resist any characterisation that makes this seem like the final time you’re going to hear from the committee.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpLiz CheneyUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Oath Keepers founder accused of ‘armed rebellion’ on January 6 at trial

    Oath Keepers founder accused of ‘armed rebellion’ on January 6 at trialStewart Rhodes and four associates face the rare civil war-era charge of seditious conspiracy for attacking the US Capitol The founder of the Oath Keepers extremist group and four associates planned an “armed rebellion” to keep Donald Trump in power after he lost the election, a federal prosecutor contended on Monday as the most serious case yet went to trial involving the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.Stewart Rhodes and his band of far-right militants were prepared to go to war to stop Joe Biden from becoming president, assistant US attorney Jeffrey Nestler told jurors.The group celebrated the Capitol attack as a battle they had won and continued their plot even after Biden’s November 2020 electoral victory was certified by Congress in the early hours of 7 January, Nestler alleged.Capitol attack officer Fanone hits out at ‘weasel’ McCarthy in startling interviewRead more“Their goal was to stop, by whatever means necessary, the lawful transfer of presidential power, including by taking up arms against the United States government,” the prosecutor said during his opening statement. “They concocted a plan for armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of American democracy.”Rhodes and the four others are the first January 6 defendants to stand trial on the charge of seditious conspiracy, a rare civil war-era charge that calls for up to 20 years behind bars, which they deny. The stakes are high for the US Department of Justice (DoJ), which last secured a seditious conspiracy conviction at trial nearly 30 years ago.Rhodes’ attorney painted a far different picture, describing the Oath Keepers as a “peacekeeping” force. He accused prosecutors of building their case on cherry-picked evidence from messages and videos and told jurors that the “true picture” would show that the Oath Keepers had merely been preparing for presidential orders they expected from Trump but never came.“Stewart Rhodes meant no harm to the Capitol that day. Stewart Rhodes did not have any violent intent that day,” Rhodes’ attorney, Phillip Linder, said. “The story the government is trying to tell you today is completely wrong.”On trial with Rhodes, of Granbury, Texas, are Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, Kenneth Harrelson, another Florida member of the group, Thomas Caldwell, a retired US navy intelligence officer from Virginia, and Jessica Watkins, who led an Ohio militia group. They face several other charges as well.About 900 people have been charged and hundreds convicted in the Capitol attack. Rioters stormed police barriers, fought with officers, smashed windows and temporarily halted the certification of Biden’s electoral victory.Prosecutors told jurors the insurrection was no spontaneous outpouring of election-fueled rage but part of a detailed, drawn-out plot to stop Biden from entering the White House.Rhodes began plotting to overturn Biden’s victory right after the election, Nestler said.He told his followers during the planning stage that “it will be torches and pitchforks time if they (Congress) don’t do the right thing”, according to an encrypted Signal message he sent to his followers that was shown to the jury by prosecutors.During a December media interview, Rhodes called senators “traitors” and warned that the Oath Keepers would have to “overthrow, abort or abolish Congress”.Before coming to Washington, they set up “quick reaction force” teams with “weapons of war” stashed at a Virginia hotel, the prosecutor said.As Oath Keepers stormed the Capitol, Rhodes stayed outside, like “a general surveying his troops on a battlefield”, Nestler said. After the attack, the Oath Keepers were “elated”, Nestler said.“These defendants were fighting a war and they won a battle on January 6 … but they planned to continue waging that war to stop the transfer of power prior to Inauguration Day. Thankfully their plans were foiled,” Nestler said.Defense attorneys say the Oath Keepers came to Washington only to provide security at events for figures such as Trump ally Roger Stone before the president’s big outdoor rally behind the White House. Rhodes has said there was no plan to attack the Capitol and that the members who did acted on their own.Rhodes’ lawyer told jurors that his client will take the stand to argue that he believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act and call up a militia. TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpJoe BidenUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    Oath Keepers to stand trial on charges of seditious conspiracy

    Oath Keepers to stand trial on charges of seditious conspiracyGroup allegedly discussed paramilitary training and ‘quick reaction force’ to get weapons to Capitol quickly on January 6 The highest-profile prosecution to stem from the January 6 attack on the US Capitol gets under way on Monday in Washington DC, where the founder and four members of the far-right Oath Keepers group will stand trial in federal court on civil war-era charges of seditious conspiracy.It’s a high-stakes trial for the US government, which will attempt to prove that Stewart Rhodes and his associates spent weeks marshaling members of the group to prepare to use violence to deny the certification of the 2016 election and keep Donald Trump in the White House.The five charged with seditious conspiracy – Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell – face 20 years in prison if convicted. Two of the 11 people indicted in the case – Brian Ulrich and Joshua James – have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. The remaining four will be tried separately.Court documents show that the Oath Keepers – described by the government as “a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias” that “explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement and first-responder personnel” – were among the individuals and groups who forcibly entered the Capitol.Before the rally, the group had allegedly discussed paramilitary training and setting up a “quick reaction force” at a Virginia hotel that could get weapons into Washington quickly if required and had equipped themselves with thousands of dollars’ worth of guns and tactical gear, including a shotgun, scope, sights and night-vision devices.But while Rhodes, who established the Oath Keepers in 2009, is not accused of entering the Capitol, cellphone records allegedly show he was communicating with Oath Keepers who had and was seen with members of the group afterwards.The trial, which is expected to last about five weeks, comes as at least 919 people have been arrested and charged with crimes relating to what many, before and after the events of January 6, have called an attempted coup d’etat. More than 400 have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.But the trial comes with risks for the government, which has not invoked seditious conspiracy laws since failing to successfully prosecute members of the far-right Hutaree militia in Michigan in 2010 in a case that was ultimately dismissed for insufficient evidence.“Americans should be wary of government’s stretching ‘sedition’ charges in ways that might set troubling precedents for a US administration,” said Jim Sleeper, former professor of political science at Yale University.At the same time, he says, “the Oath Keepers’ and their leadership’s well-documented record of excess – and Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice record of discretion and indeed of caution – incline me to trust this use of the act.”According to attorney Bill Swor, who defended the Hutaree group, the circumstances are observably different. In that case, he says, there was no plan and no action was taken. In this, there appears to be evidence that several of the alleged conspirators broke into the Capitol and delayed Congress’s certification of the electoral college count.“Taking the government at their claim that these individuals were acting to disrupt or prevent Congress from discharging its constitutional duty is a significant difference,” he said.“In our case there was a vague assertion that our clients were planning a hostile, violent attack. But government witnesses testified that there was no specific plan and this was just talk and preparation, not against the government but against the forces of the antichrist who would be expressed in … an invading force of United Nations blue helmets.“There was no suggestion that our clients had undertaken any steps to do anything beyond ‘training’ in their immediate geographical area,” Swor adds.In the government’s case against the Oath Keepers, members traveled from across the US with a specific plan, accumulated firearms and brought them to suburban Washington and would have transported them to the seat of government if necessary. “Not only do you have the express purpose but acts taken in preparation to execute a plan,” Swor added.Rhodes’s attorneys have said their defense will focus on their client’s belief that Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act and call up a militia to support his attempt to stay in power. His actions, then, were not seditious because they were only designed in anticipation of what they believed would soon become lawful.“What the government contends was a conspiracy to oppose United States laws was actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize a United States law to take lawful action,” Rhodes’s attorneys, James Lee Bright and Phillip Linder, said in a court filing.Other defendants have argued that they traveled to Washington to provide security for VIPs or rally-goers from anti-fascist protesters, or antifa.According to the government, Rhodes sent a message to an Oath Keepers chat two days after the presidential election to reject the election results. “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war,” Rhodes allegedly wrote. “Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit.”Court documents further allege that Rhodes spearheaded an online meeting with members of the group in which he outlined a plan to stop the transfer of power to Joe Biden. After that, prosecutors say, members of the alleged conspiracy began recruiting, training and coordinating their activities.A month later, on 11 December, Rhodes allegedly posted on a group chat that if Biden were to take office, “it will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going to have a fight. That can’t be avoided.”The day before certification on 5 January, the alleged conspirators transported their weapons to Washington. The following morning, Rhodes messaged: “We will have several well equipped QRFs outside DC. And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.”However the Oath Keepers trial is resolved, Swor says, the case may serve to set standards around where the individual rights to speak out and protest contravene laws protecting the functioning of government. In the case of the Sedition Act, the law was passed to curb the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, which opposed laws protecting African Americans and Catholics after the US civil war.If nothing else, the contrast between the Hutaree and Oath Keeper cases could establish “clear, bright lines and what is, and what is not, sedition,” Swor says. “In the Hutaree case, the goal was to be prepared to respond to an invasion or defend the government. In the Oath Keepers case, the government’s theory is that these people planned and took action, and that the purpose of their activity was to prevent the government from acting.”TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightnewsReuse this content More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    Pelosi reportedly resisted Democrats’ effort to impeach Trump on January 6 – live

    On January 6, “Republican tempers were running so hot against Trump that forcing them to choose sides in the Senate that week could easily have resulted in his impeachment, conviction, and disqualification from any future run for the White House,” The Intercept reported, based on the forthcoming book “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.”It would have been a massive break if it happened. GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate had generally grinned and beared it through the four years Trump had been in the White House, even when he said or did things that went against their stated beliefs. But the up-close violence of the insurrection changed things, according to the book written by two reporters from The Washington Post and Politico. Had the House gone through with impeaching Trump that very evening, a vote to convict may have won the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to succeed, removing Trump from office and barring him from running again.Reality was much more tepid. The Democrat-controlled House did vote to impeach Trump a week after January 6, and a month later, when he had already left the White House, the Republican-held Senate took a vote on whether to convict him. While 57 senators, including seven Republicans and all Democrats, voted to do so, that was 10 votes short of the supermajority needed, meaning Trump escaped punishment for the insurrection – at least for now.The newest supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had a star-studded investiture ceremony today, featuring president Joe Biden, who appointed her to the bench, vice-president Kamala Harris, attorney general Merrick Garland and the rest of the supreme court.The event was ceremonial, since Jackson had already been sworn in by Harris. It feature brief remarks from chief justice John Roberts, who administered an oath to Jackson. While cameras were not allowed inside the court during the ceremony, the pair later strolled down its front steps, where Jackson was greeted by her husband: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson photo following U.S. Supreme Court investiture ceremony. #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/bAlmg6omgg— CSPAN (@cspan) September 30, 2022
    Jackson is expected to join the court’s three-member liberal bloc, which often ends up in the minority in decisions written by the six-member conservative majority.The White House has strongly condemned Russian president Vladimir Putin’s annexation of four regions of Ukraine, saying the move is “phony” and illegal under international law.Here’s the full statement from president Joe Biden:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The United States condemns Russia’s fraudulent attempt today to annex sovereign Ukrainian territory. Russia is violating international law, trampling on the United Nations Charter, and showing its contempt for peaceful nations everywhere. Make no mistake: these actions have no legitimacy. The United States will always honor Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. We will continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to regain control of its territory by strengthening its hand militarily and diplomatically, including through the $1.1 billion in additional security assistance the United States announced this week. In response to Russia’s phony claims of annexation, the United States, together with our Allies and partners, are announcing new sanctions today. These sanctions will impose costs on individuals and entities — inside and outside of Russia — that provide political or economic support to illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory. We will rally the international community to both denounce these moves and to hold Russia accountable. We will continue to provide Ukraine with the equipment it needs to defend itself, undeterred by Russia’s brazen effort to redraw the borders of its neighbor. And I look forward to signing legislation from Congress that will provide an additional $12 billion to support Ukraine. I urge all members of the international community to reject Russia’s illegal attempts at annexation and to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.Washington responded to the move with a fresh battery of sanctions targeting hundreds of people and companies. The Guardian’s live blog has the latest on Russia’s decision, and the ongoing war in Ukraine:Russia-Ukraine war live: Kyiv applies for Nato membership after Putin annexes Ukrainian regionsRead moreIf you paid even a slight amount of attention to American politics over the past two years or so, you probably heard one name come up repeatedly: Joe Manchin. The Democratic senator representing West Virginia has become a one-man chokepoint for much of the legislation proposed by his party, whose control of the Senate is so slim they can’t afford a single defection on bills that Republicans refused to support. One of the party’s most conservative senators, Manchin is known for his opposition to changing the filibuster to make it easier to pass legislation in the chamber – a stand on which he was joined by Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema – and for opposing several proposals to fight climate change, which earned him the ire of activists who said he was beholden to the fossil fuel industry.Democrats also control the House, but it is the even 50-50 split in the Senate that gives Manchin so much power. One might think he enjoys it, but NBC News reports today that is apparently not the case. “I’m just praying to God it’s not 50-50 again,” he told the network when they spoke to him in the run-up to the 8 November midterms, where voters could widen Democrats’ majority in the chamber, or return it to Republican control. “I’d like for Democrats to be 51-49. But whatever happens, I hope it’s not a 50-50.”Manchin didn’t open up much about why he felt this way, saying only, “It is what it is. You’ve got to do your job.”U-turn as Manchin agrees deal with Democrats on major tax and climate billRead moreSpeaking of the midterms, The Cook Political Report has a good summary of where things stand in the race for control of the House, which Republicans are generally seen as having a good chance of retaking:New @CookPolitical ratings (after #OH09 move): 212 seats at least Lean R, 193 at least Lean D and 30 Toss Ups. That means Rs only need to win 20% of Toss Ups to win control, Ds need to win 83% to hold the majority. pic.twitter.com/O85ruNfYxD— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) September 30, 2022
    The aftershocks from the January 6 insurrection extend far beyond Trump.In Arizona, Mark Finchem, a Republican running for the post of secretary of state overseeing elections, was on the defensive last night when his Democratic opponent accused him in a debate of being an insurrectionist for attending the rally preceding the January 6 attack on the Capitol.“The last time I checked, being at a place where something’s happening is not illegal,’’ replied Finchem, The East Valley Tribune reports. Finchem attended Trump’s speech before the crowd attacked the building, but there’s no proof he entered the Capitol itself. The Tribune reports that Finchem had earlier said he “went to Washington to deliver a ‘book of evidence’ to federal lawmakers about claimed irregularities in the 2020 vote in Arizona – material that came out of a hearing in Phoenix involving attorney Rudy Giuliani and other Trump supporters.” He also posted a photo of the Capitol rioters, writing, this is “what happens when people feel they have been ignored, and Congress refuses to acknowledge rampant fraud.’’His Democratic opponent Adrian Fontes rejected Finchem’s explanation, saying, “What he did is engage in a violent insurrection and try to overturn the very Constitution that holds this nation together.”Arizona voters will decide the race in the 8 November midterm elections.A judge appointed by Donald Trump delivered a ruling in his favor yesterday amid the ongoing investigation of government secrets found at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Hugo Lowell reports:A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Donald Trump would not have to provide a sworn declaration that the FBI supposedly “planted” some of the highly-sensitive documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago resort, as he has suggested, until his lawyers have reviewed the seized materials.The order from US district court judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the special master case and is a Trump appointee, also pushed back several key interim deadlines that consequently extends the review’s final date of completion from the end of November to mid-December.Cannon’s ruling means Trump does not have to confirm under oath his insinuations that the FBI manufactured evidence – one of several assertions he has made, without evidence, in recent weeks that could be used against him should he be charged over illegal retention of government documents.Trump not required to provide sworn declaration that FBI ‘planted’ evidenceRead moreHere’s a revelation from “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America”, another forthcoming book on his presidency, about how Trump came up with his reason for keeping his tax returns secret. Martin Pengelly reports:According to a new book, Donald Trump came up with his famous excuse for not releasing his tax returns on the fly – literally, while riding his campaign plane during the 2016 Republican primary.Every American president or nominee since Richard Nixon had released his or her tax returns. Trump refused to do so.In her eagerly awaited book, Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman describes the scene on Trump’s plane just before Super Tuesday, 1 March 2016.Trump, she says, was discussing the issue with aides including Corey Lewandowski, then his campaign manager, and his press secretary, Hope Hicks. The aides, Haberman says, pointed out that as Trump was about to be confirmed as the favourite for the Republican nomination, the problem needed to be addressed.Trump made up audit excuse for not releasing tax returns on the fly, new book saysRead moreOn January 6, “Republican tempers were running so hot against Trump that forcing them to choose sides in the Senate that week could easily have resulted in his impeachment, conviction, and disqualification from any future run for the White House,” The Intercept reported, based on the forthcoming book “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.”It would have been a massive break if it happened. GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate had generally grinned and beared it through the four years Trump had been in the White House, even when he said or did things that went against their stated beliefs. But the up-close violence of the insurrection changed things, according to the book written by two reporters from The Washington Post and Politico. Had the House gone through with impeaching Trump that very evening, a vote to convict may have won the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to succeed, removing Trump from office and barring him from running again.Reality was much more tepid. The Democrat-controlled House did vote to impeach Trump a week after January 6, and a month later, when he had already left the White House, the Republican-held Senate took a vote on whether to convict him. While 57 senators, including seven Republicans and all Democrats, voted to do so, that was 10 votes short of the supermajority needed, meaning Trump escaped punishment for the insurrection – at least for now.Good morning, US politics blog readers.Things could have gone very differently on January 6, a forthcoming book by journalists from Politico and the Washington Post reports. Enraged at Donald Trump’s apparent incitement of the mob that attacked the Capitol, a group of House Democrats moved to impeach him that very evening at a moment when enough Republicans in the Senate may have voted to convict and remove him from office.But according to a report in the Intercept, which obtained Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump before its release, House speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed moving immediately against the then president, and the push to convict ultimately failed.The anecdote is the latest from the many books released since Trump left the White House exploring what went on behind closed doors during his presidency, but stands out for bringing to light a true turning point in American history, when one consequential course of action won out over another.Anyway, here’s what’s going on in politics today:
    Nancy Pelosi will hold her weekly press conference at 11am eastern time today in the Capitol, and you can bet she’ll be asked to comment on the Intercept’s report.
    Hurricane Ian is moving towards South Carolina after ravaging Florida. Follow the Guardian’s live blog for the latest on the storm.
    President Joe Biden is attending the investiture ceremony for supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at 10 am eastern time, then will make a White House speech about the response to Hurricane Ian at 11.30am. More

  • 188 Shares199 Views

    in Elections

    US supreme court’s approval rating falls to historical low ahead of new term – live

    When its most recent term concluded in June, the supreme court’s conservative majority had flexed its muscles in a big way.They overturned a nearly half-century old precedent to allow states to ban abortion nationwide, expanded the ability to carry a concealed weapon, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants and expanded prayer in public schools. Thus, much of the drop in the court’s public trust Gallup found in a poll released today comes from Democrats, for which confidence halved in the past year. Overall, only 47% of respondents have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the court, which isn’t bad compared to, say, Congress, but nonetheless represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago and a sharp decline from its usual two-thirds level in Gallup’s surveys.But it’s not just the public itself that has issues with how the court is behaving. The justices, or at least one justice, appear to think it’s gone too far. The White House-appointed jurors usually go to great lengths to appear impartial and stay out of Washington’s daily fray, but something appears to be going on behind the scenes. “If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy,” warned Elena Kagan in a July speech, one of the justices comprising the court’s three-member liberal minority. More unusual was the fact that Samuel Alito, the conservative who wrote the opinion overturning abortion rights established by Roe v Wade, appeared to respond to her comments with a remark delivered not in a speech – the typical venue when justices feel like opening up on a topic – but directly to the Wall Street Journal, as many other players in Washington often do.“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” Alito said.“While it is not a crime to lie to Fox News viewers or on social media, there are consequences to lying to a court.” That’s a line from a New York Times piece published today analyzing the decision by Donald Trump’s lawyers to seek the appointment of a special master in the Mar-a-Lago case – and concluding the strategy hasn’t quite paid off the way the ex-president may have hoped.First of all, a reminder of what a special master is: it’s a neutral party that a federal judge assigned to the lawsuit that followed the FBI’s seizure of documents from Trump’s Florida resort. Senior federal judge Raymond J. Dearie was appointed to sift through the documents for those covered by attorney-client and executive privilege. While the ruling temporarily halted the justice department’s investigation into whether Trump unlawfully retained government secrets, an appeals court reversed part of the lower court’s decision earlier this month, allowing the government to continue reviewing the seized documents.Nonetheless, the special master will continue his work, but the article notes that it will be expensive for Trump, who will have to foot the cost for a firm to scan all the documents, the judge to hire an assistant that bills at $500 an hour, plus all the legal fees the former president will incur.Then there’s Dearie’s demands for how the review will be conducted, which the Times reports don’t seem to favor Trump:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}And far from indulging Mr. Trump, as his lawyers likely hoped in suggesting his appointment, Judge Dearie appears to be organizing the document review in ways that threaten to swiftly puncture the former president’s defenses.
    For example, the judge has ordered Mr. Trump to submit by Friday a declaration or affidavit verifying the inventory or listing any items on it “that plaintiff asserts were not seized” in the search.
    But if Mr. Trump acknowledges that the F.B.I. took any documents marked as classified from his personal office and a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, as the inventory says, that would become evidence that could be used against him if he were later charged with defying a subpoena.
    Requiring Mr. Trump’s lawyers to verify or object to the inventory also effectively means making them either affirm in court or disavow a claim Mr. Trump has made in public: his accusation that the F.B.I. planted fake evidence. While it is not a crime to lie to Fox News viewers or on social media, there are consequences to lying to a court.There’s even a Britain angle to the Trump book, Martin Pengelly reports. Meanwhile, the country’s mini-economic crisis continues:In his first White House meeting with a major foreign leader, Donald Trump asked Theresa May: “Why isn’t Boris Johnson the prime minister? Didn’t he want the job?”At the time, the notoriously ambitious Johnson was foreign secretary. He became prime minister two years later, in 2019, after May was forced to resign.May’s response to the undiplomatic question is not recorded in Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, a new book by the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Trump asked May at debut meeting why Boris Johnson was not PM, book saysRead moreThe Guardian’s Martin Pengelly obtained a copy of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America” ahead of its release next week. As you might expect, it contained no shortage of troubling anecdotes about what was going on in the White House during his presidency:In a meeting supposedly about campaign strategy in the 2020 election, Donald Trump implied his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, might be brutally attacked, even raped, should he ever go camping.“Ivanka wants to rent one of those big RVs,” Trump told bemused aides, according to a new book by Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, before gesturing to his daughter’s husband.“This skinny guy wants to do it. Can you imagine Jared and his skinny ass camping? It’d be like something out of Deliverance.”According to Haberman, Trump then “made noises mimicking the banjo theme song from the 1972 movie about four men vacationing in rural Georgia who are attacked, pursued and in one case brutally raped by a local resident”.The bizarre scene is just one of many in Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Kushner camping tale one of many bizarre scenes in latest Trump bookRead morePresident Joe Biden has spoken with Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has been critical of the White House and is thought to be mulling a bid for president in 2024, but whose state is now being battered by Hurricane Ian.The pair committed to working together to help the state recover from the storm, according to a readout of the call provided by the White House:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The President spoke this morning with Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida to discuss the steps the Biden-Harris Administration is taking to support Florida in response to Hurricane Ian, including the issuance of a Disaster Declaration this morning. The President told the Governor he is sending his FEMA Administrator to Florida tomorrow to check in on response efforts and see where additional support is needed. The President and Governor committed to continued close coordination.The Guardian has a separate live blog following the latest news on Hurricane Ian:Hurricane Ian: DeSantis says ‘we’ve never seen a flood like this’ as Biden declares disaster – liveRead moreThe Washington Post has a preview of the upcoming supreme court term that indicates new ways the conservative majority could change American law.Here are a few of the issues raised in cases the court will consider, and potentially render consequential decisions on:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Justices have agreed to revisit whether universities can use race in a limited way when making admission decisions, a practice the court has endorsed since 1978. Two major cases involve voting rights. The court again will consider whether laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must give way to business owners who do not want to provide wedding services to same-sex couples. And after limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority in air pollution cases last term, the court will hear a challenge regarding the Clean Water Act.The court’s liberal minority, in particular justice Sonia Sotomayor, last term wrote lengthy dissents to some of the court’s most controversial decisions, which were viewed as ways of signaling just how split the panel was internally. In the Post’s piece, executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown Law Center Irv Gornstein warned that a continued trend of divisive decisions that broke along the court’s ideological lines could further widen the ideological divisions between justices. “I do think there is a potential for ill will carrying over into this term and into future terms,” he said. What the liberal justices’ scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme courtRead moreA CNN reporter managed to find Ginni Thomas somewhere in Washington, presumably near where the January 6 committee does its business, and reports that she spoke to the lawmakers in person:NEW: Ginni Thomas met with Jan 6 committee IN PERSON. She did not answer my questions pic.twitter.com/5z6pypr0S9— Annie Grayer (@AnnieGrayerCNN) September 29, 2022
    The January 6 committee will today take testimony from Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and herself a promoter of baseless claims that fraud decided the outcome of the 2020 election, Politico reports.NEWS: Ginni Thomas is testifying virtually to Jan. 6 committee *today,* two sources tell me and @nicholaswu12— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 29, 2022
    Reports in recent months have found Ginni Thomas lobbied Republican legislators around the country to take steps that could have delayed or prevented Joe Biden from entering the White House, as well as communicated with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff during Donald Trump’s last days in office. While she has said she doesn’t discuss her work with her husband, Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent earlier this year in a supreme court decision that turned down a petition from Trump and allowed access to records concerning the January 6 attack from his time in the White House.Ginni Thomas lobbied Wisconsin lawmakers to overturn 2020 election Read moreWhen its most recent term concluded in June, the supreme court’s conservative majority had flexed its muscles in a big way.They overturned a nearly half-century old precedent to allow states to ban abortion nationwide, expanded the ability to carry a concealed weapon, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants and expanded prayer in public schools. Thus, much of the drop in the court’s public trust Gallup found in a poll released today comes from Democrats, for which confidence halved in the past year. Overall, only 47% of respondents have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the court, which isn’t bad compared to, say, Congress, but nonetheless represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago and a sharp decline from its usual two-thirds level in Gallup’s surveys.But it’s not just the public itself that has issues with how the court is behaving. The justices, or at least one justice, appear to think it’s gone too far. The White House-appointed jurors usually go to great lengths to appear impartial and stay out of Washington’s daily fray, but something appears to be going on behind the scenes. “If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy,” warned Elena Kagan in a July speech, one of the justices comprising the court’s three-member liberal minority. More unusual was the fact that Samuel Alito, the conservative who wrote the opinion overturning abortion rights established by Roe v Wade, appeared to respond to her comments with a remark delivered not in a speech – the typical venue when justices feel like opening up on a topic – but directly to the Wall Street Journal, as many other players in Washington often do.“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” Alito said.Good morning, US politics readers. The supreme court’s descent into being just another politicized government branch – at least to the public – continued apace, with a new poll showing its approval falling in the wake of a term that saw a series of sharply conservative decisions, including the end to nationwide abortion rights. As if those decisions weren’t enough, liberal justice Elena Kagan twice recently warned of the perils of the court losing its impartiality – prompting an unusual public response from Samuel Alito, the conservative justice who wrote the decision ending Roe v Wade. The court’s new term begins on Monday.Here’s what else is happening today:
    President Joe Biden has declared an official disaster in Florida after Hurricane Ian trapped residents in their homes and knocked out power to millions. He will visit the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency at noon eastern time to assess the response.
    Top House Republicans have a 10am eastern time press conference scheduled to “discuss firing Nancy Pelosi” as the party looks set to reclaim the majority in the chamber.
    The chair of the January 6 committee said it will this week hear testimony from Ginni Thomas, a 2020 election denier and wife of supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. More