More stories

  • in

    Republican congresswoman Victoria Spartz charged with weapons violation at Dulles

    Republican US congresswoman Victoria Spartz has been charged with a weapons violation after she brought a gun to the Dulles international airport in Virginia on Friday, according to local authorities.Spartz, a Republican representing Indiana’s fifth congressional district, was traveling to Europe for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly when she was stopped and cited for carrying a pistol in her carry-on bag, Axios reported.It is illegal for passengers to have guns in their carry-on luggage, though they can be transported if checked. A metropolitan Washington airports authority spokesperson told local affiliate WISH TV that Spartz was charged in connection with the gun found in her bag and received a summons to appear in a Virginia court.In a statement to Axios, a representative for the Transportation Security Agency added that officers “detected a .380 caliber firearm during passenger security screening”. Officials confirmed that the handgun was not loaded.A representative for Spartz did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment but confirmed in a statement to the Washington Post that the congresswoman’s citation occurred.“Last Friday, Spartz accidentally carried an empty handgun in her suitcase with no magazine or bullets, which she did not realize was in the pocket of her suitcase, while going through security at Dulles airport,” the statement read.Spartz, who has served since 2021, garnered interest for voting “present” – rather than yes – multiple times during the contentious, lengthy House speaker election last year that was won by her fellow Republican Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy ended up being ousted from the speakership in October, becoming the first to ever be removed from the role.Spartz later declared she would not run for a third term but reversed her decision. She won her Republican primary and is favored to triumph in the November general election.Spartz is not the only Republican to be cited for carrying a firearm in relatively recent times.Former far-right Republican congressman Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina received a citation in 2022 after he brought a loaded gun through a security checkpoint at the Charlotte Douglas international airport.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCawthorn later pleaded guilty to a third-degree misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon on city property, CNN reported.A year before that, Cawthorn brought an unloaded handgun and a loaded magazine in his carry-on bag while traveling through the Asheville regional airport. Cawthorn’s gun was returned to him by airport officials after his flight, CNN reported. More

  • in

    ‘Waiting in the wings’: as Biden stumbles, Gavin Newsom’s name is on everyone’s lips

    To paraphrase Jan Brady of the Brady Bunch, lately it’s been “Newsom, Newsom, Newsom” all day long.He’s been at the Vatican for a climate summit, and in Alpharetta, Georgia, for a televised debate with Florida governor Ron DeSantis. He’s all over the TV, actually – on Fox News and MSNBC, and in advertisements airing in Tennessee.And ever since Joe Biden’s catastrophic performance at the first presidential debate on CNN, his name has popped up in nearly every list of possible successors. With just four months to go until the presidential election, chances that the president would step aside now are exceedingly remote – but that hasn’t stopped the speculation. Online political betting odds that Gavin Newsom, the California governor, would end up at the top of the presidential ticket this year tripled to a one-in-four chance last week.For the ambitious governor of the most populous US state, this crowning moment has been a long time in the making. For years, Newsom’s flair for a photo op and steady pursuit of network news spots have fueled speculation about his presidential ambitions, and sparked scepticism among constituents who’d rather he stick to his day job. Now, it seems, the man who has spent the last several years seeking a national stage has finally found himself at the centre of one.“I think it’s been clear that he’s been waiting in the wings for some time,” said Emily Hoeven, an opinion columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle and politics reporter who has followed Newsom’s career closely. “But I think that now there is a far bigger opening for him than there ever has been.”View image in fullscreenThe governor was swarmed by the press the moment the debate ended. “It was like human piranhas descending on the governor after the end of this debate,” marvelled MSNBC host Alex Wagner, as she settled in for a post-debate interview with him.Newsom, who is top surrogate for Biden’s 2024 campaign, waved away the buzz about whether he would replace Biden on the Democratic ticket. When Wagner asked about growing calls for Biden to step down, he quickly said such talk was “unhelpful and unnecessary” – before highlighting Biden’s record on the economy and abortion, and the threats his opponent poses to the continuation of US democracy.“I think what you’ve seen is this, what Gavin Newsom has to say is really not so different from what Joe Biden has to say,” said Bill Whalen, a policy fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank in Palo Alto, California. “But he takes Joe Biden’s message, and he delivers it much more effectively.”For Democrats across the US, Whalen said, Newsom is living out a dream scenario – leading a blue state with a Democratic supermajority in the legislature, where he can easily pass liberal reforms that would be nearly impossible to get through in other states or at a national level. “A lot of what Democrats would love to do nationally, California is doing,” Whalen said.It has also helped that as California governor – one who handily defeated a recall campaign in 2021 – Newsom has amassed formidable political funds that he has been using not only to aid other Democratic candidates including Biden, but also his own political aspirations. Since his easy re-election in 2022, the governor has funnelled millions in campaign funds towards ads and appearances outside his home state.Whether he can translate that momentum into a successful national campaign remains uncertain, Whalen and other political analysts said.View image in fullscreenWhile he has been busy pursuing the national limelight, his reputation at home has soured. Only 47% of likely voters in California approved of his job performance in a Public Policy Institute of California survey in June, down from 57% in March 2023.It may not help Newsom’s case that amid recent budget shortages, the state has been grappling with a spiralling homelessness crisis, an underperforming education system and growing economic inequality.“I think that his actions demonstrate that his priorities are increasingly lying outside of California,” said Hoeven. “And I think that that is frustrating to Californians who obviously did not elect him to be the president.”In recent months, Newsom has appeared to abandon some of his more progressive political stances – including backtracking on support for supervised injection sites, vetoing a bill to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms and occasionally siding with Republicans and against allies in the legislature – which some supporters have perceived as an appeal to swing voters.But it remains unclear whether the liberal governor of a blue state will ever truly have what it takes to amass national support in an increasingly divided country. And while his powerful political connections have helped his star rise in California, it is unclear whether he will be able to shed a certain elitist affect that has dogged his campaigns here.Then there’s the enduring image that’s haunted the governor’s political career for two decades: a photograph of Newsom stretched across a luxurious rug in Ann Getty’s penthouse, with his ex-wife Kimberly Guilfoyle – who is now a rightwing TV personality and Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law.View image in fullscreenIt will be easy for opponents to hearken back to the governor’s infamously ill-timed visit to the Michelin-starred French Laundry restaurant amid a Covid-19 surge, or to point out his family’s decision to move, part-time, from California’s capitol in Sacramento to the wealthy Bay Area enclave of Marin – to enrol their child in a private academy.In a recent bit on Jimmy Kimmel Live, comedian Josh Meyers plays “your lovin’ Govin” in a fake political ad where Meyers-as-Newsom attempts a bench press in his signature startup-chic navy business jacket and half-buttoned white shirt while promoting “lunar power”. He huffs a vape and when someone asks for a hit he says: “Sure, but I only vape merlot” without breaking out of his toothpaste commercial smile.“There is such a thing as perhaps being too attractive, or, more to the point, looking like the person whose photo comes with the new wallet that you buy at the department store,” said Whalen. “That’s Gavin Newsom.”Hoeven thinks back to Newsom’s inauguration in 2023, when he led what was billed as an “anti-January 6 march to the capitol”. He was meant to march about a quarter-mile, alongside supporters, down to the governor’s office. “But in reality, there were these massive fences up on either side of the promenade, basically, so the average person could not participate or really even watch the parade,” she recalled.The governor walked only a little bit, before getting into a car. “It was emblematic of some of the ways that he’s failed to connect, I think, with the average person,” she said. More

  • in

    Voters react to Biden v Trump debate: ‘Cynical and damaging to our country’

    US voters shared their reactions to Thursday’s presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, highlighting limitations of the format, weak performances from both candidates and whether the event has changed their voting intentions.‘A lifetime of being a skilled politician isn’t undone by one bad debate’“I’m bemused and somewhat disappointed about all the media and political responses that seem to say – a man who’s spent a lifetime as a successful political leader has proven otherwise by one bad debate, a debate that he participated in, in spite of being ill.“For me the most important outcome of that debate was that Donald Trump reinforced that he was danger to democracy by his pathological lying, delusion, racism and misogyny. The bottom line is that one bad debate has not changed anything, Biden is still the same person. Isn’t he entitled to one bad hour? Annan Boodram, 67, a retired educator, journalist, author and change agent engaged in mental health advocacy and activism through a not for profit NGO, the Caribbean Voice, from New York City‘Discussions about who’s better at golf are disheartening’“I knew the debate would be tough, but I couldn’t imagine it would turn out so disastrous. I lean towards the Democratic party but I would not be inclined to support a hollow political agenda whose main argument is simply being anti-Trump.It’s disheartening to see years of political experience wasted on discussions about who’s better at golf. This makes me question President Biden’s decision not to support a more robust project that could effectively defeat Trump. We’re all going to have to brace ourselves for an election period filled with sadness, frustration and disappointment.” Felix, in his 40s, a hispanic college professor from Indiana‘I’m not worried about a second Biden term’View image in fullscreen“Public speaking has never been Biden’s forte, but I believe his actual performance as chief executive continues to be very good; I have no reason to worry about a second term with him. My only fear is of a felonious [Trump] taking advantage of people who value style over substance.“Trump lied through the entire debate and looked like an idiot.“Biden spoke truthfully and rationally and like an adult. His grasp of policy far exceeds anything Trump will ever be capable of. I’m not going to panic; debates don’t decide elections. I hope Democrats will remain calm and stay the course. That said, in the extremely unlikely event that the Dems change candidates, of course I will support that person too. Paula, a retired teacher from Massachusetts‘An exercise in futility framed as the most important thing’“I tried to watch, but stopped watching [a short while in], as it was typical soundbite answers and I have better use of my time. As an informed voter who reads the news, presidential debates have always greatly disappointed me in how shallow they are, how much significance they’re given by the press when many in the public don’t watch and don’t care, and how completely divorced anything the candidates may say ends up being from their actual approach to governing.“An exercise in futility that is framed as the most important thing that happens all year. What a farce the whole production of it ends up being. Yes, I tune in hoping for it to be better. Every time I have less patience as it never is.“I tend to vote Democrat, and did so last time, but am always reluctant to rubber-stamp the party and desperately want a system that makes third parties and independents a serious and viable option, like proportional representation and ranked voting.” Daniel Dromboski, 30, unemployed, from Pennsylvania‘The press pounced’“President Biden had a lukewarm night. The press pounced on it in order to satisfy their billionaire owners. There are very few undecided voters. I don’t think the debate made much difference. I’ll be a Democrat until the day I die.” Della, 70, from New Mexico‘It’s getting difficult to defend Biden as my choice for president’“I’ve seen this debate before, four years ago. But this one was different, honestly it just made me sad. I lean left, but have had concerns about Biden’s mental acuity for a long time – even last election, when I voted for him. It’s getting difficult for me to defend him being my choice for president. “I will never vote for Trump, but I have to admit he sounded like the more articulate and compelling candidate in this debate. It makes me sad, because I don’t know if I should just not vote, vote independent, or do I really just sacrifice all of my integrity by voting for a person that I don’t believe has their wits about them.“Just watching the two of them talk, because Biden’s labored breathing gives me anxiety, and Trump – although I should mention Biden too – are both extremely negative. Neither of them even tries to convince me of a bright future I should believe in. They only try to convince me that the other screwed up this country to lows never seen before, and I believe them.” Manny Alalouf, 28 a conservationist for an international nonprofit from Michigan‘Biden is not going anywhere’View image in fullscreen“Trump lied constantly and the moderators did not call him on it. Yes, Biden is old, but he is a good person and is not going anywhere.” Walter Kopp, 60, retired, from California‘It was painful to watch Biden squander this opportunity’“I am angry about the debate, both presenters were terrible. It was painful to watch President Biden squander this opportunity to show voters what Trump, and the Republicans who support him, are really proposing if they are elected.“Trump has provided so much ammunition to the Democrats and they fail again and again to use it. Instead they are presenting too many statistics and losing the story line. Biden displayed everything the Republicans accuse him of, being old and feeble and incoherent. And – why was Trump allowed to spew so many unchallenged lies? An hour after the debate to correct him is pointless.“I think both parties are being driven by too many extreme ideas.” Melanie, middle aged, from North Carolina‘The debate was cynical and damaging to our country’View image in fullscreen“Thursday night’s debate was embarrassing. CNN’s moderators glossed over crucial issues. Trump, a convicted felon with a history of serious lies and deceptions, was allowed to evade tough questions, by the moderators.“The debate focused on familiar topics like the deficit and taxes, with Biden giving sincere but tired sounding responses and Trump making bombastic and false claims. The event highlighted that debates are more about showmanship than substance. The Earth is facing an existential threat through climate change. This is what we should be focusing on.“The elephant in the room, why a convicted felon should have access to the levers of power, was not addressed.“Meanwhile, Biden’s hoarse voice and demeanor made him seem like a weak leader. Debates are supposed to inform voters, but both candidates are well-known, and this debate didn’t offer new insights. The event was cynical and damaging to our country.” Alison, a program manager from Seattle who voted Democrat in 2020 and will support an Independent candidate this election‘This embarrassing debacle has, sadly, likely changed nothing’“I have for years been waiting for Democrats to put forward a convincing case and a strong character to rally if not liberal then moderate minds in Appalachia and other ‘conservative’ regions, to stand for some common sense. Being the stronger, better candidate than Trump should be an easy game, but it’s almost like it’s being actively thrown. What are the Democrats thinking?“I used to say I have values in common with both major parties. I’ve come to see their duopoly as the proverbial albatross around our neck. If it were not already a chaotic time in the world, one might hope to see them both collapse.“Embarrassing as this debacle was, the sad truth is that likely nothing has tangibly changed.” Alex, 29, a clerical worker from Tennessee More

  • in

    ‘They always got away with it’: new book reveals Kennedys’ shocking treatment of women

    “The whole lot of Kennedys were lady-killers, and they always got away with it,” baseball star Joe DiMaggio, who blamed the political dynasty for the death of his ex-wife, Marilyn Monroe, told his biographer. “They’ll be getting away with it a hundred years from now.”Death by air crash. Death by water. Death by suicide. These are just some of the fates of women who have associated with the Kennedys, as chronicled by investigative journalist Maureen Callahan in Ask Not: The Kennedys and the Women They Destroyed, a book published on Tuesday that explores the “real Kennedy Curse” and reads like a grisly soap opera.Just as America’s founders have recently undergone a reckoning over race, Callahan argues that the family often treated as political royalty should face a reckoning over gender. In her account, misogyny runs through the Kennedys like a stick of rock with physical and psychological abuse spanning generations. And Camelot uses its power and wealth to ruthlessly control the narrative.Callahan writes: “When a life-size bronze statue of JFK was unveiled in DC in 2021, not one bit of news coverage addressed his treatment of women. Not one journalist, essayist, political writer, or cultural critic asked whether this was a man deserving, in our new era, of such a memorial. Not one asked what kind of message his continued celebration sends to women and girls, now and in the future. Ask not, indeed.”Most topically, the book features John F Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F Kennedy Jr, currently running as an independent candidate for president with a female running mate, Nicole Shanahan. It questions why he has been criticised for his anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and antisemitic statements “but not for his lifelong mistreatment of women”.Ask Not tells how Mary Richardson, a talented architect with looks evocative of Jackie Kennedy, married Robert in 1994 and had four children with him. She loved the idea of being a Kennedy but found her husband rarely present: his job did not require travel but he travelled all the time.“Gaslit. That’s how Mary felt,” Callahan writes. “The more pain she was in, the worse Bobby treated her. Some days he wanted a divorce; others, he wanted to bring another woman into their bed, an idea that left her humiliated. She rejected him outright.View image in fullscreen“One day Mary had a female friend over and Bobby sauntered in, right out of the shower, and dropped the towel around his waist, exposing himself. Mary had long suspected he was cheating on her, but he would always deny it. He’d tell her she was crazy, that she was the one destroying their marriage and driving him away. Was it any wonder he never wanted to be home?”Mary found Robert’s diaries. In the back pages were lists of women with whom Robert had had flings. The book elaborates: “He ranked them from one to ten, as if he were a teenager. Ten, Mary knew, was for full-on intercourse. ‘My lust demons,’ he wrote, were his greatest failing.“He used the word ‘mugged’ a lot – women who, he wrote, just came up to him on the street and said, How about it? If they had sex, he considered himself mugged, a passive victim of aggressive women.“There were so many – astronomical numbers, Mary said, and she knew a lot of them: The celebrated actress who came to their house and went on vacations with her family. The older model who was always around. The socialite whose husband was one of Bobby’s good friends. A gorgeous royal. The wife of a very famous man. A lawyer. A doctor. An environmental activist. All these beautiful, accomplished women. How could Mary compete?”Mary became distraught, weeping and drinking and struggling to get out of bed, the book says. Robert tried to forcibly hospitalise her, telling her that she would be “better off dead”. Callahan interviewed Mary’s therapist, Sheenah Hankin. When Robert asked for Mary to be diagnosed as mentally ill, Hankin refused, telling him: “Your wife isn’t mentally ill. She is angry and depressed, but she is not ill.”Robert began dating the actor Cheryl Hines, who played Larry David’s wife on Curb Your Enthusiasm. He cut off Mary’s credit card and access to cash. Broke, she had to ask other mothers for an extra $20 so she could buy petrol and groceries.Finally, she hanged herself at home. The book recounts: “Mary put on her yoga clothes and sandals, walked out to her barn, stacked three metal crates atop each other, then used a metal ladder to tie a hangman’s knot around the rafter. When she was found that afternoon, Mary’s fingers were stuck inside the rope around her neck. She had changed her mind. She had tried to save herself.”Mary’s siblings insisted that her depression had been a direct result of her husband’s cheating and neglect, his threats to take the children and leave her with nothing, “bringing the full weight of the Kennedy family to bear against her”.Robert, however, portrayed Mary to the world as a disconsolate alcoholic. In his eulogy, he took no responsibility for the anguish that his adultery had caused her. He said: “I know I did everything I could to help her.”Against her family’s wishes, Mary was buried in the Kennedy family plot in Massachusetts near Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of John F Kennedy. But, Callahan writes, “one week later, in the middle of the night, without telling Mary’s siblings or obtaining the required legal permitting, Bobby Kennedy Jr had Mary’s coffin dug up and moved seven hundred feet away … Mary was left to face traffic, no headstone marking her grave, buried alone”.The title of Ask Not is a nod to the most celebrated line from John F Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” America’s 35th president is shown in an unflattering light as a philanderer who exploited his position to prey on young women.View image in fullscreenMimi Beardsley was 19 and working in the White House press office when John took her to a bedroom in the private residence, pushed her on to Jackie Kennedy’s bed and took her virginity. It was the first encounter of many, Callahan writes: “Mimi would be welcomed upstairs only when the First Lady was away, and it was her job to remind him of simple pleasures: small talk, shared bubble baths, and sex, hasty though it always was.”Callahan notes that, when Beardsley published a memoir, Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F Kennedy and Its Aftermath, it was pilloried by the media but became a New York Times No 1 bestseller. Robert Dallek, a Kennedy biographer, described Beardsley as “entirely credible” and told the Washington Post: “You’re not going to put the genie back in the bottle anymore. This has become part of the public discourse.”John’s son, John Kennedy Jr, also features in the narrative as a serial risk-taker. With film star looks and charm, he was billed as the world’s most eligible bachelor. He began a relationship with Carolyn Bessette, director of publicity for Calvin Klein, but there were jarring ups and downs. “She was underweight and anxious all the time, using antidepressants and cocaine,” according to the book.Carolyn observed John Jr’s arrogance, thoughtlessness and reckless driving up close. “There was the time Carolyn and John got pulled over on the Massachusetts Turnpike, the car reeking with the smell of pot, a starstruck cop letting them go without even a warning.“‘There’s an unwritten rule in Massachusetts,’ John told her, ‘whereby members of my family can commit murder and mayhem’ – after all, decades earlier his uncle Ted had left a young woman to die in three feet of water – ‘and nobody bats an eye.’”Nevertheless, the couple married in 1996 after a rehearsal dinner where, the book recounts, Carolyn’s mother rose and made a stunning toast. “I don’t know if this marriage is good for my daughter,” she said. “I don’t know if John is right for her.”Three rocky years later, John Jr wanted Carolyn to accompany him to a family wedding on Cape Cod. Against her better judgment, she agreed to fly with him in the small plane he was still learning to pilot. “Carolyn said this to family members, friends, the waitress at their favorite restaurant in Martha’s Vineyard. She didn’t think her husband had the patience, the diligence, the attention span, and, really, the humility to be a good pilot.”View image in fullscreenShe was tragically vindicated. John Jr did not file a flight plan and cut off all communication with air traffic control. An American Airlines flight had to divert to avoid a midair collision. John Jr kept climbing and could soon not tell up from down.“The plane went into a graveyard spiral, falling 900 feet per minute. Carolyn and [her 34-year-old sister] Lauren would have known they were going to die. The sheer force of gravity and speed would have been terrifying as they spun at 200 miles per hour, nose first, into the ocean.”Once again, Callahan writes, the myth-making Camelot machine ensured that, in the 25 years since the crash, Carolyn has been cast as a “drug-addled harridan who made the last days of America’s prince so miserable.“And, so goes the implication: if John Jr hadn’t been so miserable he wouldn’t have been so distracted, and if he hadn’t been so distracted he wouldn’t have crashed the plane. This has become conventional wisdom, accepted as fact, and it’s left Carolyn’s sister Lauren a footnote – still more collateral damage.”One of the family’s darkest chapters unfolded in 1969 when Senator Edward Kennedy accidentally drove off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, an island in Massachusetts. His car flipped upside down into a pond he swam to safety. His passenger, a 28-year-old aide named Mary Jo Kopechne, died inside the water-filled car. Kennedy did not seek help at the nearest house nor report the incident to authorities for 10 hours.“At the inquest,” Callahan notes, “John Farrar, the diver who recovered Mary Jo’s body the next afternoon, testified that Mary Jo had not drowned but had suffocated to death. He said she had been alive for at least an hour in the water, maybe longer.”Kopechne could have been saved. Yet, the author argues, that criminal act was successfully transformed into “Ted’s tragedy”, a terrible accident that unfairly denied him the presidency. He became revered as the “lion of the Senate” instead. She adds: “Ted Kennedy served out the rest of his life in Congress and was given a statesman’s funeral with wall-to-wall news coverage, while Kopechne’s name was barely mentioned.”Drawing on archives, interviews with surviving family members and friends, and biographies, memoirs and contemporaneous news reports, Callahan details the stories of several more women whose lives were upended by the Kennedys. Some were involved in notorious affairs and scandals that made lurid headlines; others became tragedies that were marginalised and mostly forgotten.The New York-based author observes: “Any victims who dare to fight back will find themselves confronting the awesome power of the Kennedy machine, one that recasts any woman, no matter how wealthy or famous or powerful, as crazy, spiteful, vengeful; a drug addict, a viper, a seductress.“Whatever grievous harm a Kennedy man may have done to her, the message remains clear: She was asking for it. It was her fault. Thus Camelot, that fairy tale of Kennedy greatness and noble men, still stands.”
    Ask Not: The Kennedys and the Women They Destroyed is out now More

  • in

    Rees-Mogg tells young Tories he wants to ‘build a wall in the English Channel’

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has said he wants to “build a wall in the English Channel” in a leaked recording, in which he heaped praise on Donald Trump and the hardline Republican response to immigration.Speaking to young Conservative activists, Rees-Mogg doubled down on his backing for the former US president, saying he took the right approach by building a border wall.“If I were American I’d want the border closed, I’d be all in favour of building a wall. I’d want to build a wall in the middle of the English Channel,” the former cabinet minister said.Rees-Mogg is fighting a strong Labour challenge in his North East Somerset and Hanham constituency against Dan Norris, the mayor of the West of England, who was previously MP in the seat until he was defeated by Rees-Mogg in 2010.Rees-Mogg, a popular figure among Tory party members, is likely to be influential in the Conservative leadership race if he retains his seat. Support for Trump’s White House bid is a sharp divider within the party between the right and the centrist One Nation group. Those who have given public backing to the former president, who has been convicted on 34 felony counts, include the Conservative former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who said Trump’s return would be a “big win for the world”, and the former MPs Andrea Jenkyns and Jake Berry.In January 2024, Jenkyns said: “We’d be a safer place if Trump came back.”; Berry told ITV the US should “bring him back”.Speaking before a pub crawl in March organised by a Young Conservative group, Rees-Mogg said: “Every so often, I slightly peek over the parapet, like that image from the second world war of the man looking over the wall, and say if I were an American, I would vote for Donald Trump and it’s always the most unpopular thing I ever say in British politics, but I’m afraid it’s true. I would definitely vote for Donald Trump against Joe Biden.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn the recording, Rees-Mogg claimed Biden “doesn’t like Britain” and said that was his biggest concern going into the election. “That’s … much more important for me than whether somebody closes the border between the US and Mexico … I want Trump to succeed as he looks like the candidate. And one does to some degree worry about the mental acuity of President Biden.”The Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has also been a champion of Trump, appearing at multiple rallies in the US and suggesting he wants to mirror the Republican candidate’s success in mounting a takeover of the right.At a rally on Sunday, Farage said he would “make Britain great again” in an echo of the former US president’s slogan. He has previously said Trump “learned a lot” from the provocative speeches he himself made during his years in Brussels.Rees-Mogg did not respond to a request for comment. More

  • in

    Trump seeks to set aside hush-money verdict hours after immunity ruling

    Donald Trump’s lawyers on Monday asked the New York judge who presided over his hush-money trial to set aside his conviction and delay his sentencing, scheduled for later this month.The letter to Judge Juan M Merchan cited the US supreme court’s ruling earlier Monday and asked the judge to delay the former president’s sentencing while he weighs the high court’s decision and how it could influence the New York case, according to the letter obtained by the Associated Press.The lawyers argue that the supreme court’s decision confirmed a position the defense raised earlier in the case that prosecutors should have been precluded from introducing some evidence they said constituted official presidential acts, according to the letter.In prior court filings, Trump contended he is immune from prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. His lawyers did not raise that as a defense in the hush-money case, but they argued that some evidence – including Trump’s social media posts about former lawyer Michael Cohen – comes from his time as president and should have been excluded from the trial because of immunity protections.The supreme court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss.Trump was convicted in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records, arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush-money payment just before the 2016 presidential election.Merchan instituted a policy in the run-up to the trial requiring both sides to send him a one-page letter summarizing their arguments before making longer court filings. He said he did that to better manage the docket, so he was not inundated with voluminous paperwork. More

  • in

    Was Donald Trump, as president, a king? The US supreme court thinks so | Moira Donegan

    Is the president a king? The US supreme court thinks so. On Monday, in its very last ruling of the term, the chief justice, John Roberts, writing for the court’s six conservatives, held in Trump v United States that Donald Trump has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for all acts that can be interpreted as part of the official course of his “core” duties, and “presumptive” immunity for all other official acts.The move dramatically extends executive authority, insulates past and future presidents from prosecution for illegal or even treasonous actions they carry out while in office and renders the former president largely criminally immune for his role in the January 6 insurrection.The court said that Trump cannot be charged for some of his “official” actions in the lead-up to the insurrection, including his attempts to pressure Mike Pence and his efforts to weaponize the justice department to force some states to reverse their election results. Much of Jack Smith’s criminal case against Trump has thereby been voided.What remains of the January 6 prosecution will now be remanded to a lower court, which will be tasked with determining what charges, if any, can proceed against Trump under the court’s new, unprecedented vision of executive immunity. That trial, if it ever happens, will not take place until long after this November’s elections, and will now likely not be able to address most of Trump’s efforts to assist in either the judicial or violent coup attempts.Richard Nixon’s status as a criminal and crook was once summarized by recounting his ominous declaration: “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” The court has now taken that vulgar absurdity and made it law.It is difficult to overstate the blow this decision will have to the integrity of our democratic system of government, or the depth of its insult to the principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law. In a ruling issued on stark partisan lines, the court’s conservatives elevated the president to a position that no person can hold in a republic: one with a sweeping entitlement to commit criminal acts for the sake of his own vulgar self-interest, without any fear of criminal legal repercussions. Criminal law no longer applies to the president; so long as he occupies the office, he exists in a permanent state of The Purge-like immunity, the ordinary rules of social and civic life suspended for him, able to use the trappings of power to flatter his vanity, reward his friends and punish his enemies as it suits him.This is one of the most consequential and frightening supreme court decisions of our lives. On the verge of an election in which Trump may well be restored to presidential power, the court has officially declared that he cannot be held accountable for abuses of that power in a criminal court.In its holding, the court’s majority made a flimsy distinction between the immunity they are granting to presidents for “core powers” and “official” acts – terms whose precise meanings they don’t define – and the criminal liability that Trump and other presidents still have for “unofficial” acts. But these distinctions are likely to collapse if any prosecutor, be it Smith or someone else, actually attempts to use them. That’s because the scope of the presidential office and its powers are so broad that its “core” powers are difficult to tell from its extraneous ones, and “official” and “unofficial” acts by the president are likely to prove ambiguous.The court also declares, needlessly, that conduct undertaken in the pursuit of “official” powers cannot be used in prosecutions of “unofficial” acts – another protection for presidential conduct that will hamstringing future prosecutions. The president, meanwhile, also retains the pardon power – meaning that he is entitled not only to commit crimes, but to secure impunity for his accomplices.In practice, Trump – and any subsequent president, should we ever get to have one – is now unaccountable to either legislative checks or criminal law. It is a development that has radically changed the nature of the office. The president is now less like a democratically accountable official than like a little emperor, endowed by the court with an all-encompassing right to wield power as he sees fit, much like the way that divine right used to bless the actions of kings. There is virtually nothing that he is not allowed to do.Preposterously, as if to mock the American public and their historical aspirations to freedom, the court claims that this new state of affairs was mandated by the framers – the very people who broke with their country and fought a war specifically so as to free themselves from this kind of unaccountable executive power.In her dissent, the justice Sonia Sotomayor listed some of the things that the president can now do without consequence, according to the majority. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she writes. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Take a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune … The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a kind above the law.”Sotomayor’s dissent is among the most alarmed and mournful pieces of legal writing I have ever read. She concludes it: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”There will be people who try to tell you that this ruling is not so bad. They will decry the “bed-wetting caucus”, or smugly declare themselves above “hysteria”. They will point to the majority’s evident concessions, to the president’s supposed liability for “unofficial” conduct – as if these false and pretextual possibility of accountability is anything like the real thing. It isn’t; don’t believe them. This decision is a seismic revision of the constitutional order, issued by a court packed with extremist Republicans who are anticipating a Trump victory in November.They know, as well as we do, that Trump aspires to usher in an era of corruption and autocracy. Today’s decision is an invitation for him to do just that.
    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    Democrats warn of ‘dangerous precedent’ set by Trump ruling; Republican House speaker calls decision ‘common sense’ – as it happened

    Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, has warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”.
    No one, including the twice-impeached former president, should be above the law. The constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all. That’s what makes America special.
    The supreme court ruled on Monday that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution, a major victory for Donald Trump that guts the 2020 election subversion case against him and any prospect of a trial before November.Here’s a recap of what happened today:
    In a 6-3 decision, the court found that presidents were protected from prosecution for official actions that extended to the “outer perimeter” of his office, but could face charges for unofficial conduct.
    Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said a former president is entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority”.
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion, warned that a consequence of the ruling is that “the President is now a king above the law”. The decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law”, she added.
    Trump celebrated the ruling as a “big win for our constitution and democracy” – a view echoed by the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, and many Republicans.
    But Democratic leaders expressed outrage over a ruling that legal experts warn could undermine the foundations of US democracy. “This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy,” said Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader. New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the decision was “an assault on American democracy”, while Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”.
    Trump’s longtime rightwing ally Steve Bannon turned himself in to start a prison term. Bannon arrived at a federal prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month sentence for defying multiple subpoenas surrounding the House’s January 6 insurrection investigation.
    The supreme court’s decision to confer broad immunity to former presidents is likely to eviscerate numerous parts of the criminal prosecution against Donald Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The court remanded the case back to the presiding US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, to apply a three-part test to decide which actions were protected – but Chief Justice John Roberts pre-emptively made clear that some were definitively out.On some of the closer calls, Roberts also gave suggestions on behalf of the majority conservative opinion, which could bear on Chutkan when she eventually weighs each allegation line by line and decides whether it can be introduced in any future trial.Most crucially for special counsel Jack Smith, his prosecutors will not be able to introduce as evidence any acts deemed to be official and struck from the case, even as contextual information for jurors to show Trump’s intent.Trump is accused of overseeing a sprawling effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, including two counts of conspiring to obstruct the certification of the election results, conspiring to defraud the government and conspiring to disenfranchise voters.The alleged illegal conduct came in five categories: Trump pressuring US justice department officials to open sham investigations into election fraud, Trump pressing his vice-president to return him to the White House, Trump trying to obstruct Congress from certifying the election, Trump giving a speech that led rioters to storm the US Capitol building, and Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors .Roberts undercut at least three of the five alleged categories in the opinion.Mary Trump, Donald Trump’s niece, was also inspired by Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in today’s immunity ruling.“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Mary Trump posted to X, quoting Sotomayor, accompanied by a link selling T-shirts inspired by the justice’s dissent.The supreme court has wrapped up its 2023-2024 term, issuing a string of blockbuster decisions with enormous implications for American democracy, individual and civil rights, and the basic functioning of the federal government.Once again, the conservative supermajority, with half its justices appointed by Donald Trump, was in the driver’s seat – strengthening the power of the presidency in its immunity ruling for Trump, and overturning precedent in a dramatic blow to the administrative state.There were crumbs of comfort for liberals, including a gun rights ruling related to domestic violence and a unanimous decision upholding access to a key abortion pill, but what the US public increasingly sees as an activist court majority continues in full swing.Read our full report on the supreme court’s biggest cases this term.Hillary Clinton, responding to the supreme court’s immunity ruling, said it will be up to the American people to hold Donald Trump accountable in the November election.Posting to X, Clinton said she agreed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, in which she said that she had “fear for our democracy”.Former attorney general Eric Holder was also highly critical of the supreme court ruling, warning that American democracy has been “gravely wounded” as a result.Posting to X, Holder described the decision as “absurd and dangerous”.New York congressman Jerrold Nadler, a ranking member of the House judiciary committee, has described the supreme court’s immunity decision as “revolutionary”.The ruling is “far cry from the democracy envisioned by our founding fathers”, Nadler said in a statement.
    Once again, Donald Trump’s extremist rightwing court has come to his rescue, dramatically expanding the power of the presidency and removing any fear of prosecution for criminal acts committed using official power. If elected to a second term, this decision has set the stage for an unchecked dictatorship by the former president, who has already made clear his intentions to weaponize the presidency to seek revenge on his political opponents.
    Dick Durbin, the Senate majority whip, said it was “disgraceful” that justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito “brazenly” refused to recuse themselves from the Trump immunity case.The supreme court’s decision “threatens the rule of law”, Durbin wrote in a series of posts on X responding to the ruling.In May, Alito declined to recuse himself from cases related to Donald Trump and his 2020 election defeat following reports that flags used to support the “Stop the Steal” movement had been displayed at his homes.Calls for Thomas to recuse himself from the immunity case were also ignored, after critics cited past efforts by the justice’s wife, Ginni Thomas, to reverse the 2020 presidential election in Trump’s favor.Nancy Pelosi said the supreme court has “gone rogue” with today’s immunity ruling, saying it was “violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law”.Posting to X, the former House speaker said:
    The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King.
    House Republicans on Monday filed a lawsuit against the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, for the audio recording of Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel in his classified documents case, asking the courts to enforce their subpoena and reject the White House’s effort to withhold the materials from Congress, the Associated Press reports.The lawsuit filed by the House judiciary committee marks Republicans’ latest broadside against the justice department as partisan conflict over the rule of law animates the 2024 presidential campaign. The legal action comes weeks after the White House blocked Garland from releasing the audio recording to Congress by asserting executive privilege.Republicans in the House responded by voting to make Garland the third attorney general in US history to be held in contempt of Congress. But the justice department refused to take up the contempt referral, citing the agency’s “longstanding position and uniform practice” to not prosecute officials who don’t comply with subpoenas because of a president’s claim of executive privilege.The lawsuit states that House speaker Mike Johnson made a “last-ditch effort” last week to Garland to resolve the issue without taking legal action but the attorney general referred the Republicans to the White House, which rebuffed the “effort to find a solution to this impasse”.Garland has defended the justice department, saying officials have gone to extraordinary lengths to provide information to the committees about special counsel Robert Hur’s classified documents investigation, including a transcript of Biden’s interview with him.Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of late Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, said on Monday she would use a new role as chair of the US-based Human Rights Foundation (HRF) to step up her husband’s struggle against Russian president Vladimir Putin, Reuters reports.The New York-based HRF said in a statement on Monday it had appointed Navalnaya to succeed former world chess champion and Kremlin critic Garry Kasparov as chair of the non-profit rights group, which provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine and runs campaigns against authoritarian leaders around the world.Navalnaya, who is located outside Russia and had two children with Navalny, accused Putin of having her husband murdered. The Kremlin denied the allegation.Navalnaya said after her husband’s death that she wanted to continue his work and has since met world leaders and suggested sanctions she believes would hasten the end of the current political system in Russia.Navalnaya, 47, said in the HRF statement:
    As someone who has personally witnessed the threat dictatorships pose to our loved ones and the world at large, I am deeply honored to take on the role of chair of the Human Rights Foundation.
    Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden sued conservative news outlet Fox News on Monday for publishing nude photos and videos of him in a fictionalized “mock trial” show focused on his foreign business dealings, Reuters reports.Hunter Biden alleges Fox violated New York state’s so-called revenge porn law, which makes it illegal to publish intimate images of a person without their consent. He is also suing for unjust enrichment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Fox aired The Trial of Hunter Biden: A Mock Trial for the American People on its Fox Nation streaming platform in October 2022 but later took it down under threat of a lawsuit by Biden’s attorneys.Fox News said in a statement:
    This entirely politically motivated lawsuit is devoid of merit.
    It only removed the program out of an abundance of caution, it said.Biden’s lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The series depicted a fictional trial of Hunter Biden on illegal foreign lobbying and bribery charges, crimes he has never been indicted for.Americans are digesting the monumental supreme court decision this morning that’s dominating the news. And Trump sidekick Steve Bannon has reported to a prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month term for contempt of Congress. There’s no shortage of US politics happenings, so stay tuned.Here’s where things stand:
    Some prominent Democrats in the House have blasted the US supreme court ruling that US presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for “official” acts taken while in office. Progressive caucus chair and Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal called it “another horrible ruling from the MAGA Supreme Court” while New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the decision is “an assault on American democracy”.
    And Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”, adding that “the framers of the constitution … did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity”.
    But Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, welcomed the immunity decision. He said it was a victory for Donald Trump “and all future presidents” and, on the principle, added that the court “clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the constitution and common sense.”
    Donald Trump’s longtime rightwing ally Steve Bannon turned himself in to start a prison term. Bannon arrived at a federal prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month sentence for defying multiple subpoenas surrounding the House’s January 6 insurrection investigation.
    The three liberal justices on the US supreme court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented from the majority opinion granting US presidents immunity for “official acts” while in office. Sotomayor wrote the dissent, saying: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
    Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform shortly after the court issued its decision on his immunity case, writing: “Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American.”
    The US supreme court ruled that US presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from prosecution for “official acts”. The court held that a former president – in this case Donald Trump – has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. The decision fell along party lines, with six conservative justices ruling against three liberal ones. But the court also ruled that former presidents are not entitled to immunity from prosecution for actions taken in a private capacity. It’s now down to interpretation which acts are which.
    Pramila Jayapal, the Democratic representative for Washington, has described the supreme court’s immunity ruling as a “bad decision”.Posting on X, she wrote:
    This is another horrible ruling from the MAGA Supreme Court that strips protections for people and empowers conservative special interests. More