Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in US Politics

    Immunity ruling likely to gut parts of criminal prosecution against Trump

    The US supreme court’s decision on Monday 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 the 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.Trump’s interactions with justice department officials, including his threats to fire the then attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and the then acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue, were absolutely immune because overseeing the department was a core function, Roberts found.As for Trump’s interactions with Pence, including pressuring him to reject electoral votes for Joe Biden in Congress on January 6, were presumptively immune because presidential discussions about vice-presidential responsibility were part of the job.The remaining allegations, about Trump’s other attempts to obstruct Congress’s certification, Trump’s speech that led rioters to storm the US Capitol building, and his efforts to organize fake slates of electors in part by spreading false claims, were left up to Chutkan.View image in fullscreenBut even then, Roberts weighed in on a key conspiracy charge against Trump: obstruction of an official proceeding before Congress.In the first footnote in the majority opinion, Roberts instructed Chutkan to apply the supreme court’s determination in a previous, related ruling about the applicability of the obstruction statute when prosecuting January 6-related crimes.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe ruling in Fischer v United States, handed down last week, held that the obstruction statute could only be used to prosecute crimes that impaired the integrity or the availability of documents.The footnote appeared to be a clear warning to Chutkan that she could not use Trump calling up Republican members of Congress on January 6 and pressuring them to continue delaying the certification of the election results after the Capitol riot temporarily halted proceedings.After all is said and done, prosecutors may be left with only Trump’s plot to recruit fake electors – which is in many ways a circumstantial case about the extent of his personal knowledge – Trump’s speech on January 6, and some private conversations.The biggest blow to prosecutors may be the inability to present any of the official acts at trial, but the reasoning for it was not revolutionary.In many ways, the new rule set by the supreme court that precluded evidence cannot be brought at trial, mirrored how federal courts apply other privilege protections, such as the so-called speech and debate clause that makes acts by members of Congress done in an official capacity immune from prosecution.Under the speech and debate clause, protected communications do not come into contextual evidence because they are litigated out during the criminal investigation stage on a line-by-line basis. They are never even presented to a grand jury when it considers indicting a defendant. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in US Politics

    US-Mexico border crossings fall to three-year low after Biden’s executive order

    Undocumented crossings at the US’s southern border have fallen to a three-year low, marking the lowest in Joe Biden’s presidency just a short time after he signed a controversial executive order limiting immigration there in June.The latest data from the federal Customs and Border Patrol obtained by CBS News is the most recent since Biden signed his executive order – and comes as the president is accused of failing to address concerns about the amount of people crossing into the US without permission.About 84,000 people crossed into the US without documentation in June, the lowest monthly total since Biden assumed office in January 2021, CBS reported.That reduction forms part of a broader trend that has seen the number of people who have entered the US without authorization steadily decrease since February, when 141,000 were apprehended at the border.Biden’s executive order restricts asylum seekers from crossing the southern border when a daily limit of crossings has been exceeded. Biden signed the order after Republicans blocked a bipartisan immigration bill that was set to limit asylum.“We must face a simple truth,” Biden said when the order was signed. “To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.”The mandate received condemnation from Democrats, particularly progressives and immigration advocates, who viewed it as punitive and reminiscent of the Donald Trump White House’s previous asylum ban.“It violates fundamental American values of who we say we are – and puts people in danger,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, the executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization, to the Guardian. “It’s part of a trap that the Democrats are falling into – they’re buying the narrative the right is pushing on immigration.”Biden’s action came amid polling which showed that a majority of registered voters don’t approve of his handling of immigration, a top-ranking issue in the 2024 presidential election. The Democrat’s executive order has done little to persuade disgruntled voters, according to a recent poll from Monmouth University.Biden has also faced consistent criticism from Republicans for failing to address record amounts of migrants arriving into the US through its border with Mexico.During Thursday’s presidential debate, Trump – the presumptive Republican nominee – repeatedly brought up the murder and assault of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, who was killed in Texas by two Venezuelan men who reportedly entered the country illegally.“There have been many young women murdered by the same people he allows to come across our border,” Trump said, as Reuters reported. “These killers are coming into our country and they are raping and killing women. And it’s a terrible thing.” More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in US Politics

    Sotomayor says immunity ruling makes a president ‘king above the law’

    In a stark dissent from the conservative-majority US supreme court’s opinion granting Donald Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision was a “mockery” that makes a president a “king above the law”.The court ruled Monday that Trump cannot be prosecuted for “official acts” he took while president, setting up tests for which of the federal criminal charges over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election are considered official and sending the case back to a lower court to decide.“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”Sotomayor, writing in a scathing tone, said the court would effectively allow presidents to commit clear crimes without punishment, an expansion of presidential powers that puts democracy at risk. She and fellow liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lay out hypothetical ways the court’s ruling could create crises in the US.“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote.“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.“Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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.”Until now, presidents have operated under the assumption that their actions were not immune from criminal prosecution if they used their office, and the trappings of their office, to commit crimes, she writes. But going forward, presidents won’t be so concerned.“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she concluded.Jackson wrote a separate dissent, though noted that she “agree[s] with every word of her powerful dissent,” and wanted to lay out the “theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States”.The ruling changes the balance of power among the three branches of government and gets rid of the ability to deter presidents from abusing their power, “to the detriment of us all”, Jackson wrote. The “practical consequences” of the majority decision “are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government”.In a footnote in her dissent, Jackson games out the “oddity” of deciding whether a president is immune from prosecution based on the character of a president’s powers.“While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death,” Jackson wrote. “Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, claims it hems in presidential immunity in some ways, Sotomayor takes that idea to task. The majority opinion is an “embrace of the most far-reaching view of Presidential immunity on offer”. No one has claimed that purely private acts would be immune from prosecution, she writes, making their exclusion an “unremarkable proposition”.The court effectively expanded what is considered an official act in a way that will capture events beyond a presidential’s core duties and ensnare unofficial acts, she claims. And a prohibition on bringing up these official acts during a prosecution of unofficial acts “deprives these prosecutions of any teeth”.She lays out an example: “For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.”The majority wrote that immunity is necessary because it allows the nation’s top elected official to execute his duties “fearlessly and fairly” and take “bold and unhesitating action” without the threat of looming prosecution. But, Sotomayor hits back, it’s more dangerous for a president to feel empowered to break the law.“I am deeply troubled by the idea, inherent in the majority’s opinion, that our Nation loses something valuable when the President is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.”The testy dissent was replete with digs at the conservative-dominated court, which, aided by justices Trump appointed when he was in office, now counts just three liberal justices and has moved the country further to the right in recent years as a result.Sotomayor directs readers to “feel free to skip over those pages of the majority’s opinion” about one area in the conservatives’ arguments. She said the majority “invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law”. The conservatives relied on “little more than its own misguided wisdom”, she wrote. She added that “it seems history matters to this Court only when it is convenient.”“In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them,” she wrote. More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    Republicans hail Trump immunity ruling as Democrats warn ‘we will not have a democracy’

    While Republicans applauded the supreme court’s decision to grant Donald Trump immunity for official acts undertaken as president, Democratic leaders expressed outrage over a ruling that legal experts warn could undermine the foundations of US democracy.The court’s six conservative justices ruled that presidents have “absolute immunity” for official acts but no immunity from unofficial acts. The distinction could hamper the federal case against Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and makes it even less likely that the case will go to trial before election day in November.Trump celebrated the ruling as a “big win for our constitution and democracy” – a view echoed by the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson.“Today’s ruling by the court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith,” Johnson said.“As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5 election.”Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House judiciary committee, weighed in as well. “Hyper-partisan prosecutors like Jack Smith cannot weaponize the rule of law to go after the administration’s chief political rival, and we hope that the left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms,” Jordan said.Democrats, meanwhile, condemned the decision as a disgrace, describing it as an attack on the separation of powers and a black mark on the supreme court’s reputation.“This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy,” said Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader.“This disgraceful decision by the Maga supreme court – which is comprised of three justices appointed by Mr Trump himself – enables the former president to weaken our democracy by breaking the law. This decision undermines the credibility of the supreme court, and suggests that political influence trumps all in our courts today.”Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, said the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”, adding: “The Framers of the constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity.”Legal experts voiced similar concerns about the ruling’s implications, highlighting liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning that the decision could enable a future president to claim immunity for blatantly illegal acts such as ordering the assassination of a political rival or organizing a military coup to stay in power.“Scotus’s immunity decision will in time rank as among the court’s worst decisions in its many year history,” Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said. “Any US president can now violate the law to remain in power as long as he cloaks it in the trappings of his office.”Joyce Alene, a law professor at the University of Alabama, concluded: “It’s up to American voters. We held Trump accountable at the polls in 2020 [and] must do it again in 2024. Because the supreme court won’t.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJoe Biden’s campaign team agreed that the ruling only heightened the stakes of the presidential race, and they urged voters to reject Trump in November to avoid a repeat of the violence seen on 6 January 2021.On a Biden campaign press call, the congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat, said the ruling underscored how Trump’s re-election would endanger Americans’ fundamental freedoms.“We’re talking about reproductive freedom, freedom to access the ballot box, freedom to love who you want, freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to live the life you want to live,” Crockett said. “We can’t underestimate Donald Trump’s threat or his dark vision for our future.”Harry Dunn, a former US Capitol police officer who working during the January 6 insurrection, told reporters that the ruling amplified Trump’s status as “the single greatest threat to our democracy”.“We don’t need nine supreme court justices to tell me that Donald Trump was responsible for January 6,” Dunn said. “I was there. Those people that attacked us, they attacked us in his name on his orders.”Congressman Dan Goldman, a Democrat from New York who previously served as lead majority counsel in Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, went even further by framing Trump’s re-election as “far and away the biggest threat since the civil war”.Goldman said: “If Joe Biden is not elected in November, we will not have a democracy that we have known for 250 years.” More

  • 238 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Joe Biden was a winner, once. It’s a huge risk to assume he can win again | Zoe Williams

    I remember when people thought the free world was in peril because its self-appointed leader didn’t have a big enough vocabulary. There were also rumblings that, at 56, he was past his prime. This was George W Bush.There was detailed analysis of his favourite words (“folk”, “folksy”), the span and structure of his sentences and what grade it would put him in at school. A lot of this information was passed by word of mouth, one person in 100 being online and telling everyone else, and none of us in the UK were sure what US grades meant, but we knew it didn’t put him in one of the high ones. Did he have the intelligence of a nine-year-old? A 14-year-old?It didn’t sound good, but it also wasn’t true; there was nothing wrong with Bush’s IQ. It was just an early iteration of the rightwing manoeuvre where they pretend to be thick, to make liberals sneer at them, then turn to the voters they want, who they have assumed are stupid (well, why aren’t they rich?), and say: “Look, this is what liberals think of you.” It was bold and it broke with the conventional wisdom that leaders acted like smart people you could look up to (Ronald Reagan notwithstanding).You could lose a lot of time wondering if Donald Trump is simply rebooting this provocative stupidity play, with extra panache and some sharks, or whether he really is as unintelligent as he sounds. But it doesn’t matter, because he’s never been anything but clear about what he wants: all that matters is whether or not he wins.Ironically, that was the rationale for Joe Biden running again. His age didn’t matter, nor his qualities; even his polling numbers didn’t count. He was the only person who could beat Trump because he was the only person who had ever beaten Trump and therefore he was the only person anyone could imagine beating Trump.Win-at-all-costs logic isn’t great for politics at the best of times. It strips everyone’s enthusiasm down to the bone as they jettison what matters to them for some hand-me-down formula of what it takes to win. They lumber towards the finish, thinking: well, it must be working for some people; let’s hope there are enough of them. And, fair play, sometimes there are. There were in the US in 2000.But what we are looking at is win-at-all-costs logic spliced with “the only thing I can imagine is a thing that has already happened”, to give the elemental principle: only a winner can win. You can throw any suggestion you like into this mix – a new perspective, new blood, someone younger, someone from a different social demographic or a different wing of the party – and you will always be referred back to the people who know how to win. What do they think? Thank you for your interest, but they would prefer a winner on this occasion. Where no winner is available, perhaps you would consider a winner’s wife?Maybe it seems presumptuous to worry about US politics, particularly now, when the UK has its own show to open, and so much sooner. Does it seem too soon, too nosy, to worry about France? Can we not just mind our own business, this of all weeks? Loth as I am to learn from anything, least of all history, this pattern of a deliberately, flamboyantly coarse and stupid right wing, petrifying its opposition into a stance so defensive that the only thing it knows how to fight is itself, is eerily familiar.The creed of winning is irritating because it’s circular and unaccountable: those who preach it often don’t win and they seldom reflect on whether they might not know how to win, instead blaming the people who didn’t want victory enough. But it’s dangerous, because it’s risk averse. And watching that risk aversion play out in Biden versus Trump makes you realise it’s incredibly risky. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in US Politics

    Bannon to turn himself in to prison after supreme court rejects appeal

    Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s longtime ally, is set to turn himself in to prison in Connecticut today after the supreme court rejected his last-minute appeal to avoid prison time.The 70-year old was ordered by the supreme court on Friday to report to FCI Danbury, a minimum security federal prison in Connecticut, on 1 July. He is expected to serve a four-month sentence following his convictions over his defiance of subpoenas surrounding the House’s January 6 insurrection investigation.In July 2022, Bannon was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress and was later sentenced to four months in prison in October 2022.Federal prosecutors say Bannon believed that he was “above the law” when he refused a deposition with the January 6 House select committee, in addition to refusing to turn over documents on his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results.The supreme court’s order came in response to Bannon asking the country’s highest court earlier this month to delay his prison sentence in an emergency application.Bannon has accused the convictions against him of being politically motivated, with his lawyer David Schoen saying that the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be investigated by the supreme court.In an interview last Sunday, the former Trump adviser told ABC host Jonathan Karl that he considers himself a “political prisoner”.“It won’t change me. It will not suppress my voice. My voice will not be suppressed when I’m there,” he said, adding that he has no regrets about defying the subpoenas.“If it took me going to prison to finally get the House to start to move, to start to delegitimize the illegitimate J6 committee, then, hey, guess what, my going to prison is worth it,” he said. More

  • 188 Shares139 Views

    in US Politics

    Biden’s family reportedly tell him to stay in presidential race as blame shifts to advisers

    Joe Biden’s family have urged him stay in the race after a disastrous debate performance last week, according to reports in the US media, as senior democrats and donors have expressed exasperation at how his staff prepared him for the event.The president gathered with his family at Camp David on Sunday, where discussions were reported to include questions over his political future. It came after days of mounting pressure on Biden, after a debate in which his halting performance highlighted his vulnerabilities and invited calls from pundits, media and voters for him to step aside.During the meeting at Camp David – which included the president’s wife, children and grandchildren – Biden’s family told him he could still show Americans that he is capable of serving another four years, according to the New York Times.While his family was reportedly aware of how poorly he performed, they also continue to think he’s the best person to beat Donald Trump.The Associated Press reported that the strongest voices imploring Biden to resist pressure to drop out were his wife, Jill, and his son Hunter, who last month became the first child of a sitting president to be convicted of a felony after a jury found him guilty of lying about illegal drug use when he bought a handgun in 2018.The Camp David trip had been previously scheduled, in order to accommodate a photoshoot with Annie Leibovitz for the upcoming Democratic National Convention.The president’s relatives were also said to be critical of the way his closest advisers had prepared him for the debate.During the debate, a hoarse-sounding Biden delivered a shaky, halting performance in which he stumbled over his words on several occasions and at times was unable to finish sentences. His opponent, Donald Trump, made a series of falsehoods, including claims that he actually won the 2020 election, which Biden failed to refute.On Sunday, a narrative blaming the rigorous debate prep calendar which saw Biden sequestered at Camp David for six days, began to build.View image in fullscreen“It is my belief that he was over-coached, over-practiced,” said John Morgan, a Florida-based attorney and major Biden fundraiser.Critics of Biden’s performance also said that the preparation should have focused on the bigger vision he needs to sell to the country.“My only request was make sure he’s rested before the debate, but he was exhausted. He was unwell,” one person who said they appealed to Biden’s top aides in the days before, told the Reuters news agency. “What a bad decision to send him out looking sick and exhausted.”The drumbeat of calls for Biden to step have grown louder since a post-debate CBS poll showed a 10-point jump in the number of Democrats who believe Biden should not be running for president, to 46% from 36% in February.Biden’s approval rating has been weakening since he took office and concerns about his age and handling of crises both at home and abroad after Thursday are under more scrutiny than ever.On Sunday, prominent Democrats blanketed the talkshows, conceding that the president’s performance had been subpar, but continued to throw their support behind him.House of Representatives Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, acknowledged that Biden had suffered a setback, but said this was “nothing more than a setup for a comeback.”Senator Raphael Warnock, a Georgia democrat and Baptist minister, said there had been “more than a few Sundays when I wish I had preached a better sermon,” relating the experience to Biden’s debate performance.“But after the sermon was over it was my job to embody the message, to show up for the people that I serve. And that’s what Joe Biden has been doing his entire life,” Warnock said.Not all Democrats appeared to be in agreement however. Asked on Sunday whether the party was discussing a new 2024 candidate, Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin told MSNBC: “There are very honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place at every level of our party, because it is a political party and we have differences in point of view.”“Whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate, he’s going to be the keynote speaker at our convention. He will be the figure that we rally around to move forward,” Raskin said.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report More

  • 213 Shares129 Views

    in US Politics

    The Guardian view on Joe Biden: Democrats must seize the wheel, not drift to disaster | Editorial

    The Democrats have no good options. The question now is which is the least dangerous of the bad ones. Democratic voters did not want Joe Biden to run again. Almost 70% judged him too old to serve another term as president when polled last year. Privately, many senior Democrats and donors shared their qualms. But with Mr Biden determined to stand, the consensus was to rally round. Now, after last Thursday’s catastrophic debate, the party is panicking. Only four months from the election, there is frenzied discussion of potential replacements.That would almost certainly require Mr Biden’s agreement. His wife, Jill, seen as key to his decision, seems to be urging him on. He is said to believe that only he is capable of beating Mr Trump again. Few agree. The lack of a formal mechanism to remove him does not preclude the effects of political gravity. Slumping polls, drying up funds and private, or even public, demands for his departure from senior Democratic figures could yet change his mind. A growing chorus of previously supportive media figures is urging him to quit.Mr Biden has achieved far more than even many sympathisers expected, despite merited internal criticism over his handling of Israel’s war in Gaza, and immigration. It is true that he has not received sufficient credit. It is also true that his debate performance was far worse than even pessimists had anticipated. It went beyond fumbling words, looking frail and sounding feeble. On abortion rights, his answer was incomprehensible. No confident rally appearances will erase this disaster.Though Mr Trump’s own rally addresses have been increasingly rambling, incoherent and vengeful, he was – by his standards – disciplined in delivery on Thursday. But what he delivered was a stream of lies. His first term, culminating in his attempt to overturn the will of the people in the 2020 election and his supporters’ storming of the Capitol, was profoundly damaging to the US. Far from any hint of repentance, his own words show that a second term would be far more destructive, and this time he has a cohesive and determined team to effect his plans. His rhetoric has become increasingly fascistic. The world is demonstrably less safe than before his tenure: look to North Korea, Iran, or any one of its emboldened autocrats from Vladimir Putin onwards. He would pull out of the Paris climate accord again. None of this lowers the bar for the Democratic candidate. It raises it, because it is essential that Mr Trump is defeated.Replacing Mr Biden at this late stage would be risky. There is no obvious candidate for a coronation, even if contenders could be persuaded to put personal ambition and political differences aside. Kamala Harris, the vice-president, has similarly dismal poll ratings. Though August’s convention would offer a stage for contenders, the party would be going to the nation with a relatively unknown and largely untested candidate.Yet Mr Biden is known and disliked. He was tested again on Thursday, and failed. He saved his country by standing in 2020. But the debate has forced many to conclude that the best way for him to save it in 2024 is to stand aside. Those closest to him must advise not in his interests, but the country’s. The Democrats are caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Whatever their choice, they must grasp the wheel before it is too late. If the vessel founders, it is not merely the party that is in danger, but American democracy itself. More