Ivanka Trump says she does not believe father’s claim 2020 election was stolenEx-president’s daughter tells House January 6 panel she accepted William Barr’s view that voter fraud claims had ‘zero basis’
January 6 hearings – follow live More
The leaders of more than 220 top American companies are calling on the Senate to pass gun control legislation, Axio reports.However, the petition signed by the CEOs of companies like Unilever, Levi Strauss, Bloomberg, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Lululemon as well as sports teams like the San Francisco Giants and Philadelphia Eagles doesn’t endorse any specific policy, and is a revised version of a letter first released in 2019, though with about 50 percent more signatories this time.“The gun violence epidemic represents a public health crisis that continues to devastate communities — especially Black and Brown communities — and harm our national economy. All of this points to a clear need for action: the Senate must take urgent action to pass bold gun safety legislation as soon as possible in order to avoid more death and injury,” the letter reads.Yesterday, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed their own measure yesterday raising the age limit to buy a semi-automatic rifle and banning the sale of magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds, but it’s unlikely to win the Senate’s approval.Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer sounded optimistic about the prospects of a bipartisan gun deal in a speech Thursday, saying “good progress” is being made by negotiators from both parties on a bill that can pass the chamber.“Yesterday, a bipartisan a group of Democrats and Republicans met again to continue working towards a bipartisan compromise. This morning, my colleague Senator Murphy reported that the group is making good progress and they hope to get something real done very soon,” Schumer said, referring to Senator Chris Murphy, the Democrats’ point man in the negotiations.“As soon as the bipartisan group comes to agreement, I want to bring a measure to the floor for a vote as quickly as possible,” the majority leader said in a speech in the chamber.It’s unclear what exactly the deal may contain, but the legislation is unlikely to contain all provisions that gun control advocates have called for. Democrats control the Senate by one vote, and the legislation will need at least some support from Republicans, who are far less inclined to limit gun access.In a nod to that reality, Schumer said, “The overwhelming consensus of our caucus, of gun safety advocates and of the American people is that getting something real done on gun violence is worth pursuing, even if we cannot get everything that we know we need.”As Ed Pilkington and Lauren Gambino report, the January 6 committee has gone to great lengths to grab the public’s attention in its hearings beginning tonight, hoping the strength of its evidence and its carefully managed presentation will counteract the enduring allure of Trump among many Americans:The directors are hoping that the storyline will have all the elements of a TV smash hit: a King Lear figure ranting and raving as his power slips away from him, a glamorous couple struggling to rise above the fray, shady characters scheming sedition in hotel bedrooms, hordes of thugs in paramilitary gear chanting “hang him” as they march on the nation’s capitol.When the US House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection opens its hearings on Thursday evening, it will do so in prime time and with primetime production values. The seven Democrats and two Republicans – shunned by their own party – who sit on the panel are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to seize the public’s attention.They have brought onboard a former president of ABC News, James Goldston, a veteran of Good Morning America and other mass-market TV programmes, to tightly choreograph the six public hearings into movie-length episodes ranging from 90 minutes to two and a half hours. His task: to fulfill the prediction of one of the Democratic committee members, Jamie Raskin, that the hearings “will tell a story that will really blow the roof off the House”.Congress’s January hearings aim to be TV spectacular that ‘blows the roof off’Read moreIf the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade in the coming weeks, Florida could become a destination for women seeking abortions — even though a ban on the procedure past 15 weeks comes into effect on July 1. The 19th’s Shefali Luthra looks into the future of abortion in the state, which may not be as bright as it seems:On 1 July, Florida will begin enforcing a law banning abortions for people past 15 weeks of pregnancy. The ban, which has no exceptions for rape or incest, has been framed by its backers as a “moderate” compromise. The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester, which ends at 12 weeks, they note. The law is less stringent than the six-week bans and total prohibitions being passed across the country in anticipation of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade, which guaranteed the right to an abortion, later this summer.Still, the 15-week ban, which has no medical rationale as a particular endpoint for access, represents a tremendous shift in Florida. The ripple effects could extend far outside of the state’s borders.Currently, abortions are legal up until 24 weeks in the state, which has more than 60 clinics. If, as expected, Roe is overturned, Florida will become a critical access point. The state, particularly its northeastern region with its cluster of clinics, will offer the most viable option for finding a safe, legal abortion for places such as South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana – all of which are poised to ban abortions, either entirely or for patients beyond six weeks of pregnancy.‘I’m scared’: Florida faces uncertain abortion future as 15-week ban set to take effectRead moreWith much of the conversation dealing with gun control and the perception that his administration is hamstrung by Republicans and rebellious Democrats, my colleague David Smith reports that Biden’s appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” wasn’t that funny at all:“Our very special guest tonight is to aviator sunglasses what Tom Cruise is to aviator sunglasses,” quipped the late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel. “I’m proud to say I voted for him dozens of times. He is the reason we all got a cavity search tonight.”This was how Kimmel introduced Joe Biden for his first in-person interview with a late-night host since taking office as US president.But any hopes that Biden, whose poll ratings are plunging, might have had that the comedian would invite him to show a lighter side to his personality were soon dashed. It was a night when there were not many laughs.Once the president had sat down, Kimmel asked: “Do you mind if I ask you some serious questions?” He then dived straight in to demand why, after a flurry of mass shootings across America, nothing had been done since Biden entered the White House.No easy ride for Biden as Kimmel tells him to ‘start yelling at people’Read moreMorning, everybody. Much of Washington is sleeping in this morning, ahead of the January 6 committee’s primetime presentation of new evidence into the assault on the Capitol beginning at 8pm Eastern time. The idea is to tell a story that, in the words of one of the committee’s members, “will really blow the roof off the House”. We’ll see if they succeed.Here’s what else is on the agenda for today:
Talks on a bipartisan compromise continue in Congress, though their prospects for success remain unclear. The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed its own gun control bill, but its chances in the upper chamber appear slim.
Joe Biden will address the Ninth Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles. He arrived in the city yesterday and filmed an interview with TV host Jimmy Kimmel.
Americans are growing increasingly nervous about inflation, a survey from the Washington Post and George Mason University found, with most expecting the price increases to worsen and changing their spending habits in anticipation. On Friday, the labor department will release updated inflation numbers for May.
An explosion at a Texas natural gas facility has raised fears of shortages in Europe, where markets are already struggling with the cutoff of Russia’s supply. More
Pelosi and other top Democrats subpoenaed over Bannon contempt caseLawyers for ex-Trump adviser request details of Capitol attack panel’s decision-making process that led to contempt ruling Top House Democrats, including speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the members of the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack, have been subpoenaed to testify in court in connection with the criminal contempt case against Donald Trump’s one-time chief strategist Steve Bannon.The subpoenas – which were accepted by the House counsel, Doug Letter, last Friday, according to a source familiar with the matter – compel the handover of documents and testimony about internal decision-making that led to Bannon’s contempt case.John Kerry commits to look into case of missing British journalist in BrazilRead moreBut whether the subpoenas stand depends on how Judge Carl Nichols rules at a hearing next week, where he will asses pre-trial motions. Nichols could decide the testimony of members of Congress, for instance, is inadmissible because of protections like the so-called speech and debate clause.Bannon’s lawyers are seeking cooperation from top Democrats including Pelosi, the House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the House majority whip Jim Clyburn, all members of the select committee and three select committee counsels, as well as Letter.The subpoenas request materials that Bannon’s lawyers believe will provide evidence that the select committee did not follow House rules in issuing its subpoena to Bannon last year, and that federal prosecutors violated justice department rules in filing charges.It was not clear on Tuesday whether Letter, the House counsel, would move to quash the trial subpoenas. Letter, through a spokesman for the select committee, could not be reached for comment.Letter could also move to reach an arrangement with David Schoen, the lead lawyer defending Bannon in his contempt case. Schoen told the Guardian he would be prepared to discuss the matter in the hope that Letter would not move to dismiss the subpoenas.“The subpoenas are asking for materials that belong to the American people. It would be pretty ironic for the committee to quash the subpoenas when they issued a subpoena demanding materials from Bannon, where Trump asserted executive privilege,” Schoen said.Bannon’s lawyers are making a multi-pronged defense to try and save Bannon from being convicted of criminal contempt of Congress after he was referred to the justice department for prosecution for failing to comply with a subpoena in the congressional January 6 inquiry.The main thrust of Bannon’s argument is that he cannot be held in wilful contempt because he could reasonably believe the subpoena was invalid when the select committee failed to allow a Trump lawyer to attend his deposition, after Trump asserted executive privilege.The argument rests on a 2019 justice department office of legal counsel opinion that says congressional subpoenas that prevent executive branch counsel from accompanying executive branch employees to depositions are “legally invalid” and not enforceable.Bannon’s lawyers are also making the case that the select committee in violation of House rules made no effort to grant a one-week extension to reply to the subpoena after his attorney asked for time to review Trump’s related lawsuit against the panel.The defense that Bannon is advancing – using broad readings of parts of the justice department’s own positions and amalgamating them into a wider argument – is controversial, but it underscores the complexities facing federal prosecutors in pursuing the case.“Bannon’s trying to use the OLC opinions as a shield that doesn’t quite cover him, but gives him enough of a defense to fend off the DoJ’s necessity of proving criminal intent,” Jonathan Shaub, a University of Kentucky law professor and a former OLC attorney-adviser, previously told the Guardian.TopicsSteve BannonUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
US networks to air January 6 hearings – but Fox News sticks with Tucker CarlsonPublic hearings by House committee investigating Capitol attack will be broadcast live on all main TV networks except Fox News The public hearings by the House committee investigation into the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol, which start on Thursday, will be broadcast live by all main TV networks and cable channels in America bar one – Fox News.The historic proceedings kick off at 8pm New York time, and in Watergate style will attract near-blanket live coverage on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and more. By contrast, the most-watched TV news channel, Fox News, will stick with its primetime show, Tucker Carlson Tonight.The decision pits Carlson’s introductory monologue against the opening remarks of the January 6 committee’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, as the latter outlines how Donald Trump tried to undermine the 2020 election in order to hang on to power. Carlson has used his platform consistently to belittle the investigation and to downplay the significance of the Capitol attack that led to the deaths of seven people and forced the then vice-president, Mike Pence, to flee a violent mob.On the anniversary of the attacks, Carlson said on air that the insurrection “barely rates as a footnote”. He has championed false conspiracy theories about it, including the claim that the attack was a “false flag” operation spearheaded by federal officials to discredit conservatives.News coverage of the hearings will be relegated from Fox News to its sister channel, Fox Business Network. As CNN’s Brian Stelter pointed out, Fox News is the leading cable news network at prime time with more than 3 million viewers while Fox Business on average attracts fewer than 100,000.The scheduling plan drew fire from members of the January 6 committee. Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republican members of the committee who are participating in the hearings in defiance of their party, accused Fox News of hiding the truth “if it disagrees with your narrative”.Kinzinger, a representative from Illinois, made a direct appeal to Fox News staff: “If you work for Fox News and want to maintain your credibility as a journalist, now is a good time to speak out, or quit. Enough is enough.”The relentless efforts of Fox News stars to diminish the significance of January 6 stands in contrast to what some of them said on the day itself. As hundreds of Trump supporters were storming the Capitol building, Laura Ingraham sent a text to the then White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, saying “the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.”Later that night, Ingraham used her show, The Ingraham Angle, to blame the violence on antifa.Brian Kilmeade, co-host of the morning show Fox & Friends, and primetime star Sean Hannity, privately made similarly frantic appeals to Meadows as January 6 unfolded.Fox News’s response to the congressional hearings forms part of wider counter-programming against the proceedings being waged by the right. Top Republicans including the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are planning aggressive pushback, including a rapid response unit and talking points that describe the proceedings as “rigged”.Republican leaders and others who remain loyal to Trump are also hoping that “January 6 fatigue” will have set in, and that large sections of the American public will fail to tune in.TopicsFox NewsUS Capitol attackTV newsUS television industryTelevision industryUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
Proud Boys leaders charged with seditious conspiracy in 6 January riotEnrique Tarrio and four other members accused of plotting to attack the US Capitol Top leaders of the far-right Proud Boys group, including its national chairman, Enrique Tarrio, have been charged with seditious conspiracy for plotting to storm the US Capitol to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden’s election win over Donald Trump on 6 January 2021.Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearingsRead moreThe move by federal prosecutors to charge Tarrio and four other Proud Boys leaders with seditious conspiracy – in addition to previous charges of obstructing a congressional proceeding – marks a major development in the criminal investigation into the Capitol attack.In the 33-page indictment unsealed in Washington DC on Monday, the justice department said Tarrio and his co-defendants Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola for months used encrypted messaging apps to stop Biden’s certification by force.The new charges against the proud Boys leadership come days before the parallel congressional inquiry into the Capitol attack is scheduled to start televised hearings that are expected to examine, in part, Trump’s personal culpability in the events of January 6.Seditious conspiracy, which is challenging to prove, requires federal prosecutors to show beyond a reasonable doubt that at least two people agreed to use force to overthrow the government or to interfere with the execution of a US law.The new indictment is the latest involving seditious conspiracy, after the justice department filed identical charges earlier this year against top members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, including its founder Stewart Rhodes, over the Capitol attack.A bipartisan US Senate report linked seven deaths to the attack on the Capitol, which failed to stop certification of Biden’s win. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection but acquitted when enough Senate Republicans stayed loyal.In adding on the seditious conspiracy charges, the justice department appeared to indicate that it has learned new information in recent weeks about the Proud Boys’ plans ahead of 6 January as a result of several significant developments.One of the Proud Boys, who was originally charged with Tarrio and the other co-defendants for obstructing a congressional proceeding, Charles Donoghue pleaded guilty in April and accepted a plea deal to cooperate with the criminal investigation into the group.Meanwhile, though the indictment also identified unindicted co-conspirators – “Person 1” is understood to be Jeremy Bertino and “Person 2” is likely Aaron Whallon Wolkind – neither of those men have been charged. A third top Proud Boy leader, John Stewart, also remains uncharged.The government said in the indictment that on 20 December 2020, Tarrio created a chat called “MOSD Leaders Group” – described by Tarrio as a “national rally planning committee” – that included Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and other individuals who were not identified.Through the rest of December, the government said, Proud Boys leaders used additional MOSD group chats to plan a “DC trip” and communicate to group members that they should go to the capital not wearing their familiar black and yellow colours but travel “incognito” instead.The government said in the indictment that on 30 and 31 December 2020, Tarrio communicated with an individual – whose identity is known only to a grand jury – who sent him a nine-page document, called “1776 returns” in reference to the year of American independence from Britain. It laid out a plan to occupy “crucial buildings” on 6 January.The document broadly outlined a plan to reconnoiter and storm crucial government buildings in Washington DC on 6 January, though not the Capitol itself, the New York Times earlier reported.Tarrio is said to have received the “1776 returns” document from one of his girlfriends, who compared the plan to storming the Winter palace in St Petersburg that sparked the Russian Revolution in 1917, the New York Times reported.The indictment cited a reference to that moment in the new indictment, drawing upon what appeared to be newly-uncovered text messages. After the Capitol attack ended, Bertino messaged Tarrio, “1776,” to which Tarrio responded: “The Winter Palace.”Three days before the Capitol attack, a Proud Boy referred to only as “Person-3” posted a voice message in the MOSD Leaders Group that stated the “main operating theater should be out in front of the House of Representatives”, according to the indictment.“That’s where the vote is taking place with all of the objections,” the person said, according to the indictment. “Plan the operations based around the front entrance to the Capitol building. I strongly recommend you use the National Mall and not Pennsylvania Avenue.”The new pieces of evidence in the latest indictment were messages Bertino sent to Tarrio after the attack. “You know we made this happen,” Bertino said. Referring to the implications of obstructing Biden’s win, Bertino added: “They HAVE to certify today. Or it’s invalid.”Tarrio was not in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, having been ordered to leave the capital by a judge after being arrested the day before for burning a Black Lives Matter banner at a church during a pro-Trump rally in December.But the justice department has said that even though Tarrio was not accused of “physically taking part in the breach of the Capitol”, he “led the advance planning and remained in contact with other members of the Proud Boys during” the attack.Eleven members of the Oath Keepers militia are also charged with seditious conspiracy.Lawyers for Tarrio and the other four Proud Boys leaders have said there is no evidence they conspired to storm the Capitol, and that the MOSD group chats and the acquisition of tactical gear before 6 January were measures to protect themselves in case of potential altercations.TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightnewsReuse this content More
The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.Read the Guardian’s full report:Legal claims shed light on founder of faith group tied to Amy Coney BarrettRead moreNo more opinions are due today from the US Supreme Court, with all the biggest decisions still awaited. We’ll be keeping an eye on the court’s calendar and on the indispensable Scotusblog for upcoming dates and the rulings issued on those dates. For anyone curious to know a bit more about how this works, the Scotusblog FAQ page is handy, here. The court doesn’t give lots of notice about which will be opinion days in June and, likely, edging into July with such a big caseload. And the public isn’t told what opinions are coming down until they land. However, of course there was the early May bombshell leak of the draft opinion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case out of Mississippi, which explicitly includes a request from the state authorities to the court to overturn the pivotal 1973 Roe v Wade decision that afforded the constitutional right to an abortion in the US.The final opinion is awaited… US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v WadeRead moreThis blog is now handing over to the Guardian’s new US politics blogger Chris Stein, based in Washington, and our colleague there Joanie Greve, who was at the helm of the blog but in recent months took on her new role as one of our senior politics reporters. They’ll take you through the rest of today’s politics news. For all the breaking news on UK politics today involving a no-confidence vote in prime minister Boris Johnson, please follow our London team here as they bring you the events as they happen there, in the UK politics live blog.Here’s Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas again, this time putting his name to a decision in the case of Southwest Airlines v Saxon.In an eight to zero opinion (Amy Coney Barrett was recused from this case), Thomas issued the decision that the court essentially said an airline worker is not required to go to arbitration over her pay dispute with Southwest and can fight her case in the courts.The Supreme Court adopts a broad interpretation of an important exception in the Federal Arbitration Act. The upshot of the 8-0 ruling is that an airport worker (and others similarly situated) can bring a claim for overtime pay in court, rather than being forced into arbitration.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
The Bloomberg Law site notes that the case could have a wide impact on worker arbitration rights. It explained that Latrice Saxon:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Sued the airline in 2019, alleging it failed to pay her and hundreds of current and former ramp supervisors time-and-a-half earned for their overtime work. The Dallas-based carrier countered that its employee was contractually bound to bring the claim in arbitration, rather than in court. While a federal district judge agreed with the airline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did not. The supreme court took up the case.The US supreme court has issued three opinions today, moments ago, although they are not the cases the nation is on the edge of its proverbial seat about – abortion and gun rights.The court just ruled that the Florida authorities can recoup $300,000 in medical expenses out of a settlement paid in the case of Gianinna Gallardo, who suffered appalling injuries at 13, in 2008, when she was hit by a truck after getting off a school bus. A 7-2 majority, with the opinion written by Clarence Thomas and joined by liberal-leaning Elena Kagan, opined for the state over the Gallardo family.A few minutes prior, the court ruled in a case, Siegel v Fitzgerald, about the constitutionality of increased US Trustee’s fees charged to companies in chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.Details on the third ruling in a tick.The Supreme Court strikes down Congress’ decision to increase bankruptcy fees in most states while leaving a different system in place in two states. SCOTUS unanimously holds that the two different fee systems violates the Constitution’s requirement of “uniform” bankruptcy laws.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
The US supreme court is about to issue ruling(s) on cases decided in the current term.We’ll keep you up to date on what happens, when the opinion(s) are handed down at 10am ET.As Scotusblog notes, there’s a lot for the bench to get to:We’re live now:https://t.co/S5A4KeL5nQ https://t.co/ddml8iKgtC— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
The four big cases we at the Guardian are watching most closely are an environmental case out of West Virginia, a gun rights case stemming from New York, an immigration case via Texas involving the US-Mexico border and the pivotal Mississippi abortion case that also includes the state authorities asking Scotus to overturn Roe v Wade.The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.Good morning, US politics blog readers, it’s going to be an exceptionally busy, high-stakes week in Washington with Americans’ constitutional rights and democracy itself under the spotlight.Here’s what’s on the agenda.
The US Senate is back in session on the Hill today after its latest recess and a bipartisan group of senators is exuding confidence that a package of gun control measures can make progress, while the leading lawmaker in talks warns of “significant” consequences of failure.
Talks continue amid another series of deadly shootings at the weekend, following grotesquely on the heels of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas and the racist killing of Black Americans in a supermarket in Buffalo.
New measures under discussion do not include the demands of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for a ban on assault weapons, following the recent carnage, but there is more progress being made right now on legislative talks than there has been for years.
The US Supreme Court is due to issue opinions today and Thursday, June being the crunch month for decisions arising in cases from the current term and with more than 30 decision to be declared. The public (and press) are not party to which cases will be announced until the bench speaks up.
Last but not least for this briefing note: the special House committee investigating events on and around the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of then-president Donald Trump is in final preparations for its first public hearing, this Thursday in prime time – and the right is already revving up its riposte. More
Trump’s bid to cling to power ‘beyond Nixon’s imagination’, Watergate duo sayBob Woodward and Carl Bernstein write in new book foreword that bid to overturn election made Trump ‘our first seditious president’ Donald Trump was the first seditious president in US history, surpassing in his efforts to hang on to power beyond even the criminal imagination of Richard Nixon, according to the two political reporters who were instrumental in securing Nixon’s downfall.In a new foreword to their celebrated 1974 book on the Watergate scandal, All the President’s Men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein accuse Trump of pursuing his “diabolical instincts” by zeroing in on the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory by Congress on January 6 last year. In the authors’ assessment, Trump’s unleashing of the mob that day, culminating in the violent attack on the US Capitol, amounted to “a deception that exceeded even Nixon’s imagination”.Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearingsRead moreThey write in their foreword, published by the Washington Post, they write: “By legal definition this is clearly sedition … thus Trump became the first seditious president in our history.”Woodward and Bernstein’s comparison of Trump and Nixon carries singular weight, given that as young Washington Post reporters they helped to uncover Nixon’s campaign of political spying and cover-up that led in 1974 to the only resignation of a president in American history. In separate capacities, the two journalists have also reported extensively on the Trump presidency, with Woodward doing so in a series of three books: Fear, Rage and Peril.The timing of their analysis is also potent. It comes just days before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection stages the first of at least six televised hearings in which they will attempt to show the American people that Trump acted corruptly in his efforts to stop Biden’s certification.Woodward and Bernstein suggest that the two presidents had much in common, despite the almost half a century that stands between them. Nixon’s belief that it was for the greater good that he stayed in power whatever the means was “embraced by Trump”, they write.“A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits,” Nixon told himself in 1969. That informed Trump’s campaign to hold on to power through falsehoods even in the face of defeat.Misinformation also unites the diabolical pair. “Both Nixon and Trump created a conspiratorial world in which the US constitution, laws and fragile democratic traditions were to be manipulated or ignored, political opponents and the media were ‘enemies,’ and there were few or no restraints on the powers entrusted to presidents,” Woodward and Bernstein say in their new foreword.The reporters also explore the differences between the two men, notably that Trump attempted his electoral subversion in public. Pulling no punches, they call the January 6 insurrection “a Trump operation” and predict that the House committee has an abundance of evidence to prove that point in the upcoming hearings.Though Nixon’s criminal misdeeds tend to be remembered through the lens of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on 17 June 1972, and the cover-up that followed, the authors remind their readers that his core purpose was to subvert that year’s presidential election. They rehearse some of the extreme measures that Nixon’s team of operatives took to derail the presidential campaign of his main Democratic rival, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.Those measures included writing fake letters on Muskie stationery alleging sexual misconduct by other Democratic candidates and stealing Muskie’s shoes from outside his hotel room where he had left them for polishing in order to spook him out. Muskie ultimately lost the Democratic nomination to the liberal senator George McGovern of South Dakota.Trump, the reporters argue, pursued equally ruthless tactics designed to undermine credibility in the 2020 presidential election. They reached a pitch on January 6 with the violent mob breaking into the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence” against Trump’s vice-president who was proceeding with certification of the election results.In the last analysis, Woodward and Bernstein ask themselves why two such powerful men would embark on parallel efforts to destroy democracy. They have one overriding answer.“Fear of losing and being considered a loser was a common thread for Nixon and Trump,” they write.TopicsDonald TrumpBob WoodwardCarl BernsteinUS Capitol attackUS politicsRichard NixonWatergatenewsReuse this content More
US justice department declines to charge former Trump officials Meadows and Scavino with contempt of CongressDecision marks major blow for House committee investigating US Capitol attack The US Department of Justice will not pursue charges of criminal contempt of Congress against top former Trump White House officials Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for refusing to comply with subpoenas in the congressional investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol.The decision – communicated to the counsel for the House of Representatives on Friday morning – marks a major blow for the House select committee investigating January 6, which had sought prosecutions for the two Trump aides in criminal referrals.But in a letter sent around the same time that the justice department charged former Trump White House official Peter Navarro with contempt for defying his subpoena, the US attorney for the District of Columbia said he would take no action against Meadows and Scavino.Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attackRead more“Based on the individual facts and circumstances of their alleged contempt, my office will not be initiating prosecutions for criminal contempt as requested in the referral against Messrs Meadows and Scavino,” the US attorney, Matthew Graves, said.The justice department’s letter, earlier reported by the New York Times, was confirmed to the Guardian by two sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications.In declining to prosecute Meadows and Scavino, Graves said in his letter that his office was also closing the probes into two of Trump’s most senior advisers. “Review of each of the contempt referrals arising from the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation is complete,” he said.Meadows did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. An attorney for Scavino could not be reached late on Friday. The US attorney’s office declined to comment.The decision marks the denouement for five months of speculation over whether the justice department would move to bring contempt charges against Meadows, who was deeply involved in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as White House chief of staff.Meadows was among the very first targets to receive a subpoena from the select committee and initially assisted the investigation under a cooperation agreement, turning over thousands of pages of documents and communications, until he abruptly withdrew from the deal.Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe select committee moved to recommend him for criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to attend a closed-door deposition, but that initial cooperation – in addition to his valid claims of executive privilege – appears to have brought him a reprieve.The select committee also recommended contempt of Congress charges for Dan Scavino, the former Trump White House deputy chief of staff for communications, who remained in close proximity to Trump on January 6 and was subpoenaed to give documents and testimony.Scavino is not understood to have provided any materials. But as with Meadows, Scavino spent months negotiating with the select committee over executive privilege and justice department office of legal counsel memos that shield presidential advisers from testifying.TopicsUS newsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More
