Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump takes bizarre turn as he ratchets up racist rhetoric against migrants

    Reaching for racist rhetoric bizarre even for him, Donald Trump compared undocumented migrants to the US to Hannibal Lecter, the serial killer and cannibal famously played by Sir Anthony Hopkins in the Oscar-winning 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs.“They’re rough people, in many cases from jails, prisons, from mental institutions, insane asylums,” the former president and probable Republican presidential nominee claimed in an interview with Right Side Broadcasting Network on Monday. “You know, insane asylums, that’s Silence of the Lambs stuff.“Hannibal Lecter? Anybody know Hannibal Lecter?”To laughter from the audience at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump added: “We don’t want ’em in this country.”Trump has made such statements before, including in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland last month. As framed to Right Side, they were the latest piece of extremist and dehumanizing invective from a candidate seeking to make immigration a core issue of the 2024 presidential campaign.Trump has a long history of such racist statements, having launched his successful 2016 presidential campaign by describing Mexicans crossing the southern border as rapists and drug dealers.His liking for Lecter led him to claim, at a rally last October, that the actor who played the character “said on television, ‘I love Donald Trump’, so I love him”.Hopkins has not publicly said he loves Trump. In 2018, he told the Guardian: “I don’t vote because I don’t trust anyone.” Brian Cox, another actor to have played Lecter on screen, has called Trump “such a fucking asshole” and “so full of shit”.In 2016, Mads Mikkelsen, who played Lecter on television, told CBS News that though he could “definitely laugh at some of the stuff [Trump] says”, he “can also go, ‘Oh my God, did he say that?’ I think he’s a fresh wind for some people.”Trump is an alleged serial offender, facing 91 criminal charges as he runs for office.Yet despite those charges (17 for election subversion, 40 for retention of classified information, 34 for hush-money payments to an adult film star) and multimillion-dollar civil penalties over his business affairs and a rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”, Trump dominates the Republican primary.He also leads Joe Biden in most general election polling – surveys subject to warnings from experts about sampling techniques and accuracy so far out from election day.Super Tuesday: read more
    Everything you need to know about Super Tuesday
    Key issues in the 2024 US election
    Trump all but certain of Republican nomination
    Trump spoke to Right Side the night before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and one territory were scheduled to hold primary votes. Trump’s last, pulverised Republican opponent, Nikki Haley, was widely expected to end her campaign soon after.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs in his successful run for president in 2016, Trump is seeking to use problems at the southern border – high numbers of arrivals from Central America presented as a crisis, real or not – as a central campaign issue.At his direction, Senate Republicans sank a bipartisan deal on border and immigration reform. House Republicans have refused to move on the issue.Biden has sought to emphasise Trump and Republicans’ refusal to work on solving the border problem. The president’s campaign has also repeatedly slammed Trump for using far-right, fascistic language when discussing migrants, including a repeated claim migrants are “poisoning the blood” of America. The Biden campaign directly compared those remarks to Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric during his rise to power in Germany.Speaking to Right Side, Trump repeated another campaign-trail complaint, about languages spoken by migrants to the US.“We don’t even have teachers of some of these languages,” he said. “Who would think that? We have languages that are, like, from, from the planet Mars? Nobody, nobody knows how to, you know, speak it.”On Trump’s father’s side, his ancestors spoke German. His mother was also a migrant, growing up in the Scottish islands, in a household that spoke Gaelic. His first wife, Ivana Trump, the mother of his three oldest children, spoke Czech. Melania Trump, his third wife and the mother of his son Barron, is Slovenian.Trump also made a blatantly false claim about everyday life in cities where large numbers of migrants have arrived, many bussed or flown in by Republican governors.“We have children that are no longer going to school,” Trump said. “They’re throwing them out of the park. There’s no more Little Leagues [children’s baseball], there’s no more sports, there’s no more life in New York and so many of these cities.” More

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in US Politics

    The US supreme court could still swing the election for Trump | Lawrence Douglas

    On Monday, the US supreme court unanimously overturned the Colorado supreme court’s decision to remove Trump from the Republican primary ballot. The highest court in the land predictably concluded that the “insurrection clause” of the 14th amendment did not authorize state enforcement “with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency”.A contrary ruling would have been a recipe for chaos, and, worse still, would have done nothing to safeguard the nation from a potential Trump victory in November. I say this because presumably the only states that might have barred Trump from their ballot would have been those of the solidly blue variety – states Trump was going to lose anyway. And given that Republicans, particularly of the Maga-stripe, are masters of the politics of retaliation and escalation, we would have witnessed red states clamoring to remove Biden from their ballots. The result would have been an election precisely to Trump’s liking – one without democratic legitimacy.But if the court acquitted itself in this case, we still have reason to fear the mischief it might play in the upcoming vote. In Monday’s ruling, the court was conspicuously silent about whether Trump actually engaged in insurrection or election interference. Those matters are still to be decided at trial – that is, if either the Fulton county court or the DC district court ever gets to try its case.At present the Georgia prosecution is beset with problems of its own making. Whether the charges against the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis – that she allegedly profited by hiring a special prosecutor with whom she was romantically involved – are true is almost irrelevant. The fact alone that members of the prosecution are themselves under investigation casts a pall over a proceeding that needed to look squeaky clean.The federal election interference case is another matter. The federal case – arguably the weightiest of the four criminal cases pending against Trump – was to have been the first to go before a jury, with a scheduled start date of 4 March. The court already put the kibosh on that timetable when last week it chose, after taking its sweet time, to hear Trump’s claim that he enjoys absolute immunity for all official acts committed during his presidency – a wildly overblown claim already roundly rejected by two federal courts.That immunity hearing will take place during the week of 22 April, the very last week of oral arguments in the court’s 2023-24 term. This means that even if the court were to reject Trump’s immunity claim – as it presumably must – the federal trial probably would not start until September at the earliest.The timing is crucial for two reasons. First, those of us plunged into despair by the recent polling data showing Biden trailing Trump have taken meagre comfort in reports that a criminal conviction might cause a substantial number of voters to reject Trump. Delaying the trial could work to bar the American people from this critical piece of information. Those inclined to cynicism might observe – that is the very point.The timing also permits the court to influence the federal trial and possibly the election in a second, potentially more insidious fashion. The court is poised to decide a case this spring in which Trump is not a party, but which could have major consequences on his belated federal trial. The case involves a challenge brought by a January 6 rioter who argues that his federal indictment is based on a misapplication of the federal obstruction statute. The federal case against Trump also charges the former president with violating this statute, which criminalizes the “corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding”. Indeed, the charge lies at the heart of the case against Trump. Should the court conclude that federal prosecutors have misapplied the statute, not only would numerous convictions of rioters be tossed out, but the case against Trump would be dramatically, if not fatally, weakened.What does this have to do with timing? Had the court chosen not to hear Trump’s immunity claim, leaving intact the circuit court’s pointed rejection, Trump’s federal trial might have ended and a verdict rendered before the court had decided the rioter’s case. Imagine Trump had been found guilty and the court subsequently voided the conviction – the cries of foul would have been loud and fierce and long. Now, however, the court has given itself the opportunity to rule on the obstruction charge before Trump’s trial has begun. Defanging a prosecution before it has even started would certainly arouse outrage, but nothing like the partisan scorn and unrest that would come with a post-conviction intervention.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionToday, Trump promptly described himself as “very honored” by the court’s ruling, adding that it “will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs” – the man is nothing if not shameless. But his sudden adoration of the court might not be misplaced. Without directly affecting the outcome of an election like it did in Bush v Gore back in 2000, today’s court still could swing a Trump win.
    Lawrence Douglas is the author, most recently, of Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020. He is a contributing opinion writer for the Guardian US and teaches at Amherst College More

  • 250 Shares149 Views

    in US Politics

    The Biden administration has a chance to deliver student debt relief. It must act | Astra Taylor and Eleni Schirmer

    Last week, the Washington Post reported that President Biden recently pressed Jeff Zients, his chief of staff, on the issue of student debt cancellation, telling him “to make sure his team was making the relief as expansive as possible”.That’s good news for tens of millions of borrowers. But expansive relief will not be delivered if the administration fails to learn the lessons from round one of the cancellation battle: speed and conviction matter.When the supreme court struck down President Biden’s attempt to cancel student debt last summer, his administration got to work to make plans for future cancellation. Today, the window for cancellation is open once again. Biden’s Plan B has a fighting chance – but only if the president moves fast.Last month the administration concluded a five-month long regulatory process to hammer out the legal parameters for cancellation using the Higher Education Act – a different legal authority than Biden used the first time around. In the last session of this process, a session which was only undertaken thanks to pressure from activists and progressive elected officials, rulemakers cracked open a critical window for debt cancellation.This session established “economic hardship” as grounds for cancellation. Once again, Biden’s Plan B has a fighting chance – but only if the president seizes the moment and walks through it.Why is the new provision on economic hardship such a game-changer? As we know all too well from our work in the debt abolition movement, the vast majority of student borrowers experience economic hardship, struggling to make basic living expenses. In fact, we consider student loans themselves to be an indicator of economic hardship, a kind of regressive and financially debilitating tax on anyone who isn’t wealthy enough to pay for tuition outright.These new guidelines recognize this. They open space for Biden to deliver on promised relief. Our fear, however, is that the administration will move slowly and cautiously, and, by doing so, enable their Republican adversaries to slam the window shut and claim another victory.Moving slowly – a result of prioritizing means-tested relief, rather than cancellation for all – was one of the reasons that Biden’s prior debt relief plan met a bad end. Consider how the Department of Education took 51 days to put their extremely simple application for relief online. Every day they delayed implementing relief bought time for billionaire-backed lawsuits to move through a court system stacked with conservative judges eager to make partisan rulings.It has now been six months since Biden announced his Plan B and already too much time has been wasted on regulatory machinations that some experts argued weren’t even necessary to begin with. Looking ahead, cancellation must be issued in the boldest, fastest manner possible, to give people relief and to register the results in time for the upcoming elections.If the administration decides, once again, to route cancellation through an application or to otherwise “target” relief, instead of universally applying it, we will find ourselves in a groundhog day scenario: waiting for the administration to ready their process to administer relief while further lawsuits are prepared by the conservative right’s battalion of highly paid lawyers.Last summer, both of us helped launch a first-of-its kind online tool that helps borrowers create and send legal appeals for the Department of Education to cancel their debt. The Student Debt Release Tool builds from the Department of Education’s legal authority to cancel student debt as part of the Higher Education Act of 1965 – a tried and true authority that has been used many times to eliminate people’s federal loans. Within weeks of the launch of the Student Debt Release Tool, tens of thousands of borrowers submitted appeals, flooding the Department of Education, and rumored to have shut down the agency’s email servers at least once.The information in the Release Tool clearly demonstrates how student debt creates hardship, and why cancellation is the urgent and just response. In these appeals, borrowers recount their brushes with homelessness and turns to sex work, their mounting medical bills, their children’s grumbling stomachs when the cupboards yet again fall empty, the anxiety and depression that ensues.The Release Tool also shows that the Department of Education already has the information it needs to act, and should start doing so now.Beyond a canned reply, however, borrowers have received no meaningful response to their appeals from the Department of Education, leading debtors to seek help elsewhere. Over the past three months, groups of student borrowers in New York, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, Georgia, Indianapolis and Missouri have been virtually marching into their congressional representative’s offices – asking them to send letters to the Department of Education urging the secretary to use the powers vested in him by the Higher Education Act to cancel student debt without delay, or excessive administrative procedures that risk thwarting the actual delivery of relief.Although President Biden insists that he is doing everything he can to cancel student debt, the tens of millions of debtors desperate for relief, and the tens of thousands of unanswered Release Tool appeals, suggest otherwise.Since President Biden’s initial plan to cancel debt was announced, the stakes have only become higher. As part of debt ceiling negotiations, President Biden turned student loan payments back on, leading the interest on over $1.6tn dollars of federal student loan debt to once again pile up. Although Biden has attempted to reform one of the most faulty income-driven repayment programs, too many borrowers have found their payments erroneously increasing, rather than the purported goal of lowering monthly bills.And while the Biden administration proudly struts its efforts to cancel student debt on social media, in reality only 10% of eligible borrowers have received even partial relief. The majority are waiting, desperately, on a promise unfulfilled. A sense of being gas-lit looms.There is, of course, no way for Biden to wholly protect against bad-faith litigation or to avoid anti-democratic decrees issued by Trump-appointed judges. But the Biden administration should show it is willing to fight. Don’t tell voters you are doing everything you can on debt cancellation, President Biden. Show us.
    Astra Taylor is a writer, organizer and documentary maker and a co-founder of the Debt Collective
    Eleni Schirmer, a writer and postdoctoral fellow at the Concordia University Social Justice Centre in Montreal, is part of the Debt Collective More

  • 213 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump’s apologists say it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty of insurrection. That’s not true | Mark Graber

    Donald Trump may be the only person about whom prominent conservatives think innocence is irrelevant. Voters in many states filed lawsuits arguing that Trump was constitutionally disqualified from the presidency, under section 3 of the 14th amendment, having committed treason against the United States when resisting by force the peaceful transfer of presidential power. The Colorado supreme court agreed. Trump and his lawyers responded by waving numerous constitutional technicalities that they claimed exempted traitors from constitutional disqualification, while barely making any effort to refute charges that the former president committed treason on 6 January 2021.On Monday, all nine justices on the US supreme court agreed that Donald Trump should remain on the presidential ballot even if he is, in the words of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “an oathbreaking insurrectionist”. No one challenged that finding.Proponents of law and order – who, for decades, railed against judicial decisions that freed from criminal sanction suspected and convicted criminals based on due process rights that are unconnected to guilt or innocence – now celebrate the possibility that a contemporary Benedict Arnold may hold the highest office of the land. They rejoice that the supreme Court kept the former president on the ballot in all 50 states by relying on alleged constitutional rules that do not require Trump to defend himself against treason allegations.The charge is treason, that Trump is a traitor. Section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies past and present officeholders who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Case law and legal treatises from the American Revolution until the end of Reconstruction uniformly held that persons who engaged in insurrection levied war against the US. Levying war or engaging in an insurrection, these legal authorities agreed, did not require traditional warfare, but merely an assemblage resisting any federal law by force for a public purpose.Treason is defined in part by article 3 of the constitution as levying war against the United States. The Republicans who framed section 3 of the 14th amendment in 1866 self-consciously invoked the treason clause when considering constitutional disqualification. Representative Samuel McKee of Kentucky stated that constitutional disqualification “cuts off the traitor from all political power in the nation”. Senator Richard Yates of Illinois, who had been a close political associate of Lincoln, declared: “I am for the exclusion of traitors and rebels from exercising control and power and authority in this government.”Proponents of Trump’s disqualification presented powerful evidence to the trial court in Colorado and to the Maine secretary of state that Trump is a traitor who levied war against the US. They presented evidence that Trump knew that his tweets were instigating violence against state elected officials; that Trump was aware that the armed persons in the assemblage on January 6 were seeking his approval to resist by violence the peaceful transfer of presidential power; and that his speech and his actions after the speech were intended to incite and support the violent resistance to federal authority that occurred.Courts in Colorado and the Maine secretary of state found those evidentiary presentations compelling. Their decisions disqualifying Trump declared that the plaintiffs had met their burden when proving Trump was a traitor to the US.Had Trump been a poor, young man of color, conservatives would have insisted that Trump rebut the evidence and findings that he is a traitor. For more than a half-century, proponents of law and order have quoted the title of the judge Henry Friendly’s 1970 University of Chicago Law Review article Is Innocence Irrelevant? when persons suspected of ordinary crimes invoke constitutional rights in state or federal courts.Chanting “Is Innocence Irrelevant?” conservative judges sharply narrowed constitutional rights against police searches and self-incrimination. They drastically reduced the occasions on which persons suspected or convicted of ordinary crimes may assert what remain constitutional rights. Conservative justices have so gutted federal habeas corpus review that the underlying principle seems “better some innocent persons rot in prison than one guilty prison be freed on a constitutional technicality.” American prisons are now overpopulated by people who have had their constitutional rights violated during the process of investigating or prosecuting their crimes.Prominent conservatives make no such demands for proof of innocence when Trump is at the bar of disqualification. In the disqualification hearings, Trump’s lawyers made only perfunctory efforts to deny his culpability in the insurrection of 6 January 2021. His lawyers barely mentioned matters of guilt or innocence when filing briefs before the supreme court or in oral argument. Conservative commentators who insist that Trump remains qualified to hold the presidency do not spend their energies documenting why Trump is not a traitor. Six supreme court justices in Trump v Anderson refused to comment on whether Trump committed treason. That defense case, they implicitly recognized, cannot be made.Trump, his lawyers and his supporters respond to charges that Trump is a traitor with numerous assertions that have nothing to do with whether Trump incited and participated in the January 6 insurrection. They claim that section 3 exempts treasonous former presidents or permits traitors to be elected president of the US. They insist that traitors can be disqualified under the 14th amendment only if Congress authorizes the disqualification. They claim that section 3 disqualifies only persons who committed treason during the civil war and does not disqualify persons who lead violent secession movements now.The supreme court in turn invented a rule that congressional legislation under section 5 of the 14th amendment is necessary for federal officials to be disqualified, a rule unknown to the text of section 3 or the persons who framed section 3. Mississippi in 1868, under this rule, could not disqualify Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis from the presidential ballot.So-called originalists are not deterred by proof that many if not all these technicalities are far-fetched and belied by the historical evidence. There is nothing in the text or history of the 14th amendment, for example, that suggests different procedures for disqualifying federal officers than those used for disqualifying state officers. The prison abolitionist movement would achieve its goals if courts showed the same creativity finding technical excuses to avoid conviction in ordinary criminal trials as Trump and the supreme court have shown when avoiding disqualification.Trump’s advocates argue that the former president’s innocence is irrelevant when responding to the numerous criminal indictments against him by federal and state prosecutors. Again, Trump barely contests the multiple felony indictments that charge him with engaging in racketeering, soliciting or impersonating a public officer, making false statements or documents engaging in conspiracies to defraud the federal government and against civil rights, obstructing justice, willfully retained national defense information, illegally withholding or altering documents, and falsified business records.To all those crimes Trump claims that he cannot be legally culpable for any criminal action he took when president of the United States. Rebutting criminal charges is for ordinary Americans, not for the Maga leader.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTechnicalities matter. Innocence is sometimes irrelevant. We often protect the innocent by not punishing the guilty. Refusing to permit reliable information obtained by an unconstitutional search into evidence at trial may deter police officers from unconstitutionally searching people not guilty of any crime. Government should not profit from wrongdoing. The justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v United States (1928) wrote, “If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”Commitment to the rule of law may provide a third reason why innocence is sometimes irrelevant. No one may be convicted of treason on the testimony of one eyewitness, no matter how weighty the incriminating evidence, because article 3 requires two witnesses to support a treason conviction. The supreme court’s conclusion that Colorado could not disqualify Trump without congressional permission, however implausible as a matter of law, does compel the justices to permit the former president to remain on the ballot no matter how strong the evidence that Trump is a traitor.Yet innocence is also sometimes relevant. The rule of law does not provide sufficient reasons for straining the constitution to find technicalities that enable traitors to run for president of the United States. The principle that clear legal mandates must be followed does not justify performing legal gymnastics to reach such an absurd result as exempting a former president from a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office.Innocence is always relevant when a person seeks honors or power. Constitutional commitments to the rule of law do not require giving the same respect to suspected criminals who get off on technicalities as to persons found not guilty, even as both may not suffer direct or collateral criminal sanctions. Persons seeking honors must rebut charges of culpable behavior. They cannot excuse their conduct by pointing to legal technicalities.A work of literature is not eligible for the Nobel Literature prize if the author without attribution lifted passages from another book, even if the statute of limitations no longer allows a lawsuit for plagiarism. People are properly disqualified from being on drug prevention taskforces after avoiding being convicted for drug dealing because the search that uncovered the incriminating fentanyl was unconstitutional.Trump’s innocence is relevant to his political qualifications for the presidency even as the supreme court decides his innocence is not relevant to his constitutional qualifications for the presidency. No political party should in good conscience nominate, and no voter should in good faith support, a candidate who seeks on constitutional technicalities to avoid a charge of treason.Trump’s guilt, which he and his attorneys have largely conceded, is not irrelevant to his being entrusted with the presidency. By insisting that his innocence is irrelevant to his legal qualifications to hold office, Trump is disqualifying himself from holding office politically. His failure to contest the evidence of his treason acknowledges that, the supreme court decision not to the contrary, he is a traitor who must not hold any office of trust or profit under the United States.
    Mark A Graber is a professor of law at the University of Maryland and the author, most recently, of Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in US Politics

    Why IVF is under attack in Alabama | podcast

    When Gabrielle Goidel and her husband turned to fertility treatment they had already endured the grief and pain of three miscarriages. The couple, who had recently moved from Texas to Alabama, turned to IVF. It was stressful, uncomfortable and very expensive but they were determined to start a family. But just when Gabriele’s treatment had progressed to the stage where her eggs were about to be retrieved they hit an unexpected hurdle. In February, Alabama’s Supreme Court made a ruling in a case in which embryos in an IVF clinic were accidentally destroyed. In their judgements, they classified the embryos as “extra uterine children”. That decision had the potential to change everything about the use of IVF in the state. If embryos were children, with the same rights, what would that mean for the storage and transportation of embryos? What about embryos that are discarded, either because a previous embryo has already been implanted in the patient, or because they are not viable? In the face of such confusion, explains the Guardian’s US health reporter, Jessica Glenza, the biggest IVF providers in the state paused treatment. She explains how the courts ruling aligns with other assaults on reproductive rights in the US, such as abortion, and explains what part the Christian right has played in the decision. Hannah Moore hears how the fall out is playing with Republican and Democratic voters – and whether this assault on IVF could spread to other states. Amid the uncertainty, Gabrielle explains the pain and fear potential parents are feeling as their hopes for a child are left in limbo More

  • 213 Shares109 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘The worst in modern history’: Super Tuesday won’t hold surprises but warnings abound for Trump and Biden

    Microphone in hand, Nikki Haley was delivering a well-rehearsed stump speech when a primal cry came from the audience. “He cannot win a general election!” yelled a man, referring to Donald Trump and the ex-president’s chance against Joe Biden. “It is madness!”Haley supporters at a campaign rally in a tiny Washington hotel on Friday signaled their agreement. But they are in a distinct minority within the Republican party as the biggest day of this year’s primary election campaign approaches.Fifteen states and one territory will vote in contests known as Super Tuesday, when more than a third of delegates will be assigned to July’s Republican national convention in Milwaukee. Past results and opinion polls suggest that, by Tuesday night, Trump will have in effect wrapped up the Republican nomination against Haley, his sole remaining challenger.On the Democratic side, incumbent Biden has swept aside token challenges by Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota and the self-help author Marianne Williamson and is cruising to the nomination. The lopsided contests and lack of suspense are making Super Tuesday, one of the most celebrated rituals of the American election season, look not so super this time.Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, said: “It never mattered less. I don’t know any political event that’s got more attention for being less relevant. The decision has been made. The choice is clear. You know who the two nominees are and 70% of Americans would rather it not be so.”Trump is poised to take the latest giant stride in a dramatic political comeback. He was written off by many after his 2020 election defeat, the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol and the barrage of 91 criminal charges against him. Yet he has seen off a dozen challengers and easily won the first eight Republican nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, the US Virgin Islands, South Carolina, Michigan, Missouri and Idaho.The former Republican president has done it despite – or perhaps because of – a campaign based on retribution against his enemies and the promise of a second term even more radically rightwing than his first. Trump’s scattergun rhetoric, promising to be a dictator on “day one” and claiming that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”, has been rewarded with primary win after primary win.View image in fullscreenCharlie Sykes, a contributor and columnist for the MSNBC network, said: “We’ve learned once again that the Republican party just can’t quit Donald Trump, that there is no red line, that there’s no going back. Nikki Haley and earlier Chris Christie gave speeches that would have been well within the mainstream of the Republican party as recently as 2015 but now they sound like they’re being beamed in from another country.“Part of the reason that so many people take crazy pills is you look at Donald Trump and he has become more extreme, more deranged and more unhinged and yet nothing seems to matter. His authoritarian agenda couldn’t be clearer and yet Republicans who once thought of themselves as the party of liberty and the constitutional order are just falling into line behind him.”Still, there have also been warning signs for Trump. The 77-year-old has repeatedly won less convincingly than opinion polls suggested he would. In the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, the Associated Press’s AP VoteCast found that college graduates backed former South Carolina governor Haley over Trump. She has been running him close in the suburbs, a perennial weakness for the former president.Rick Wilson, a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said: “Trump is supposed to win all these races, is supposed to be the dominant figure in the party. The fact that, depending on the state and the day, there’s still 20, 30, 40% Republicans who are saying no, I’m going to pass on this, and independent voters who are coming out to cast a vote against him, is not the unified-Republican-party theory of the case that there will be absolute fealty to him.“I’m not saying that any of them in the race could have put together a sufficient coalition against him but, if you don’t go after him, you’ll never get it. If you don’t speak truth about him, you’ll never defeat him.”Anti-Trump sentiment was palpable at Haley’s rally of more than a hundred people in Washington, the capital, an overwhelmingly Democratic city where there are only about 23,000 registered Republicans. The former South Carolina governor argued for a return to normality after the Trump and Biden years, which she asserted had emboldened foreign foes, run up trillions of dollars in debt and left the American dream in jeopardy.Wearing a grey Nike tracksuit sweater with I Pick Nikki and I Voted stickers, Joe Neal, 28, said: “I’m not going to support a seditionist. I’m not going to support someone who supported terrorism, as far as I’m concerned. I certainly agree with some of the former president’s policies but he cannot get my vote this time around.”Asked whether Haley is likely to drop out after Super Tuesday, Neal, an e-commerce business owner, added: “Typically, yes, but this is not a typical year. You’re running against someone who, quite frankly, could be in prison one day and that’s just the reality.”Haley has taken in significant campaign money, including $12m last month, and vowed to fight on. But she has seen some of her financial support waver recently. The organisation Americans for Prosperity, backed by the Koch brothers, announced it would stop spending on her behalf after she lost her home state of South Carolina.Donors could be tempted to pull the plug after Super Tuesday, where the map heavily favours Trump. Polls show him to be an overwhelming favourite in California and Texas, as well as in states such as Alabama, Maine and Minnesota. His campaign projects that he will win at least 773 delegates on the night and formally clinch the nomination a week or two later.Biden, for his part, is assured of the Democratic nomination when party loyalists vote for delegates to August’s Democratic national convention in Chicago. But the 81-year-old also has plenty of political headaches. Polls show deep voter concerns about his age as well as rising prices and an influx of people crossing the southern border.Some Democrats are unhappy with his steadfast support of Israel in its conflict with Hamas in Gaza. An organised attempt to vote “uncommitted” in the Michigan primary to protest Biden’s handling of the war garnered more than 100,000 votes, a significant protest, although the 13% share was only slightly higher than that option got in the last primary under a Democratic president.Last week, a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll found Biden trailing Trump in seven swing states – Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin – when voters were asked who they would support in a hypothetical general election. On average, Trump was leading by 48% to 43%. On Saturday, a New York Times/Siena College poll found that the share of voters who strongly disapprove of Biden was at its highest in his presidency, at 47%.Luntz, who had a long track record of advising Republican campaigns before Trump seized control of the party, said: “With every passing week, Joe Biden gets weaker and weaker as more and more voters come to decide that he’s simply too darn old. And so you see this gap between Trump and Biden widening.“The gap is widening because Biden is collapsing. With the economy getting stronger and conditions on the ground getting better, Joe Biden is still getting weaker. That’s a three-alarm fire in America. The lights are flashing, the people are screaming but Joe Biden doesn’t hear them.”Super Tuesday is not only about the presidential election. Among the most notable down-ballot races is the one in California to succeed the late Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein. Vying to replace her are Democratic representatives Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff and Republican Steve Garvey, a former baseball star.Most pundits will be studying the results for clues about a presidential race that is sure to be close and decided in a handful of swing states.Asked what he had learned from the primaries so far, Luntz said: “That Donald Trump has lost suburban women that used to vote Republican, that Joe Biden has lost Latinos and a fair number of union members that used to vote Democrat, that there is going to be some serious and significant shifting of certain demographic and geographic voters. And that this election is going to be the worst in modern history.” More

  • 275 Shares109 Views

    in US Politics

    US tells Israel credible aid plan needed before any military operation in Gaza and urges Hamas to accept ceasefire deal – live

    A temporary ceasefire is essential to a deal to release more of the hostages still held by Hamas since they were snatched during the attack by the Islamist group that controls Gaza on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to the White House.This news is still emerging over the wires and we’ll bring you details as they unfold. The White House just said there will be additional air drops of US aid over Gaza, which is besieged by Israel and where the north of the territory is almost cut off from aid entirely.Reuters is reporting that the White House stated that the US calls on Hamas to accept terms of a ceasefire and hostage release deal now. More as we get it.An updated summary of the day’s key news from myself and my colleagues.The big politics news: The supreme court overturned a Colorado ruling that barred Donald Trump from the state’s ballot for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, issuing a decision that judges nationwide will likely cite to allow him to compete in the remaining Republican primaries, and the November general election. However, the court’s three liberal justices and one conservative worried that the authors of the majority opinion went further than necessary, though for different reasons. In remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump thanked the court for their ruling, while also encouraging them to find him immune from prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. That matter has yet to be decided.Here’s what else happened today:
    The US called on Hamas to accept the terms of a temporary ceasefire and hostage release deal currently being negotiated in Cairo. Israel has “provisionally accepted a six-week phased hostage and ceasefire deal,” per reports.
    A day after she called for an “immediate ceasefire,” vice president Kamala Harris had a closed-door meeting with Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet member and prominent centrist rival of right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The White House said in a statement they “discussed the situation in Rafah and the need for a credible and implementable humanitarian plan prior to contemplating any major military operation there given the risks to civilians.”
    As half a million Palestinians are facing starvation in what aid workers call an “all man-made” famine in Gaza, the US state department said on Monday it supported the United Nations doing a review into an aid-related incident in Gaza last week where dozens of people were killed.
    Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s former finance chief, pleaded guilty to perjury in New York City, in a deal that will send the 76-year-old to jail but will not force him to testify against the Trump family, his employers for half a century.
    Trump’s allies in Congress, including House speaker Mike Johnson and potential vice-presidential pick Elise Stefanik were also pleased with the supreme court’s ruling. But the justices did not absolve Trump of the charge that he was involved in an insurrection, noted Neal Katyal, who used to argued before the supreme court on behalf of Barack Obama.
    The White House has released a statement of what vice president Kamala Harris discussed in her closed-door meeting with Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet and a rival of right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.The key news line: “The vice-president and Minister Gantz discussed the situation in Rafah and the need for a credible and implementable humanitarian plan prior to contemplating any major military operation there given the risks to civilians.“She urged Israel to take additional measures in cooperation with the United States and international partners to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza and ensure its safe distribution to those in need.”Relatedly, the US state department on Monday said it supports the United Nations doing a review into an aid-related incident in Gaza last week where dozens of people were killed, Reuters reported.‘Spending his golden years in jail:’ analysis on Trump finance chief’s plea deal This is Lois Beckett, picking up our live politics coverage from our west coast bureau in Los Angeles.Earlier today, the former chief financial officers of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, made a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to perjury charges related to his testimony in Trump’s recent civil fraud trial.Norm Eisen of the Defend Democracy Project argued that Weisselberg’s guilty plea “further strengthens the 2016 campaign corruption and coverup criminal case being brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg” and that “his plea and the associated jail time is a stark reminder to those witnesses in Trump’s orbit of the price for lying in his service” and would likely serve “as a deterrent to other Trump allies who will take the stand during the DA’s case against him.’Jake Offenhartz and Michael R. Sisak of the Associated Press emphasized a different aspect of the plea deal in their reporting, noting that the deal sends Weisselberg, who is 76, “back to jail, but does not require that he testify at Trump’s hush-money criminal trial.”They write:
    In pleading guilty, Weisselberg found himself caught again between the law and his loyalty to Trump, whose family employed him for nearly 50 years and sent him into retirement with a $2 million severance. His plea to perjury is further evidence that, rather than testify truthfully in a way that might harm his old boss, he was willing to again spend a chunk of his golden years in jail.
    Donald Trump’s speech at Mar-a-Lago after the supreme court’s ruling this morning allowing him to stay on the ballot was nothing more than “unhinged, confused ramblings focused only on himself”, in the words of Joe Biden’s re-election campaign.Spokesman Ammar Moussa came out swinging against the former president in a statement:
    Today’s chaotic musings from Trump only remind the American people why they voted him out of office four years ago. While Trump rants and raves from his country club, President Biden is focused on what actually matters – delivering results for the American people, from lowering prescription drug costs to capping insulin prices and building an economy that works for the middle class. Trump thinks this election is about him and his power – not the American people – and that’s why he’s going to lose again.
    The Biden campaign has its own problems, particularly the president’s worrying poll numbers. A closely watched survey by the New York Times and Siena College released over the weekend showed voters remain skeptical of Biden, particularly over his ability to continue doing the job into his 80s:Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, when something like 15 states vote in presidential primaries. It’s supposed to be exciting, but probably won’t be, the Guardian’s David Smith reports:Microphone in hand, Nikki Haley was delivering a well-rehearsed stump speech when a primal cry came from the audience. “He cannot win a general election!” yelled a man, referring to Donald Trump and the ex-president’s chance against Joe Biden. “It is madness!”Haley supporters at a campaign rally in a tiny Washington hotel on Friday signaled their agreement. But they are in a distinct minority within the Republican party as the biggest day of this year’s primary election campaign approaches.Fifteen states and one territory will vote in contests known as Super Tuesday, when more than a third of delegates will be assigned to July’s Republican national convention in Milwaukee. Past results and opinion polls suggest that, by Tuesday night, Trump will have in effect wrapped up the Republican nomination against Haley, his sole remaining challenger.On the Democratic side, incumbent Biden has swept aside token challenges by Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota and the self-help author Marianne Williamson and is cruising to the nomination. The lopsided contests and lack of suspense are making Super Tuesday, one of the most celebrated rituals of the American election season, look not so super this time.Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, said: “It never mattered less. I don’t know any political event that’s got more attention for being less relevant. The decision has been made. The choice is clear. You know who the two nominees are and 70% of Americans would rather it not be so.”Over the weekend, the United States airdropped food into Gaza, but the World Food Programme warned that may not be enough to prevent famine in the enclave. Here’s more on that, from the Guardian’s Emma Graham-Harrison and Quique Kierszenbaum:The deaths of more than 100 people when Israeli forces opened fire near an aid convoy in Gaza was a tragedy that should have been foreseen and could have been prevented, the World Food Programme country director for Palestine has said.Matthew Hollingworth also said an aid corridor into northern Gaza was needed urgently to prevent a “man-made” famine there after Palestinians were starved of food at terrifying speed and scale.“To have a situation today with half a million people facing famine in just five months is extraordinary at that scale,” he said. “There’s nowhere else in the world today with this many people at risk of famine. Nowhere. And it’s all man-made.”From the Guardian’s Emma Graham-Harrison and Julian Borger, here’s the latest on the negotiations aimed at achieving a temporary ceasefire in Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and the release of hostages taken by Hamas:Israel has provisionally accepted a six-week phased hostage and ceasefire deal which would begin with the release of wounded, elderly and female hostages, but it was still unclear on Saturday whether Hamas would accept it, US officials have claimed.Talks took place in Doha, the Qatari capital, on Saturday and were expected to move to Cairo on Sunday as the scale of looming starvation pushed the US to start air-dropping food into the enclave.The US said an extended ceasefire was the most direct route to getting large-scale aid deliveries into Gaza, and suggested that agreement was close. “The path to a ceasefire right now, literally at this hour, is straightforward,” a senior US official said. “And there’s a deal on the table. There’s a framework deal. The Israelis have more or less accepted it. And there will be a six-week ceasefire in Gaza starting today, if Hamas agrees to release the default defined category of vulnerable hostages: the sick the wounded, elderly and women. “We’re working around the clock to see if we can get this in place here over the coming week,” the official said. He said Israel had “basically” accepted the deal, but did not specify whether it still had reservations or what those were.Kamala Harris took some reporters’ questions in Washington, DC, moments ago as she headed for her meeting with Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet member and prominent centrist rival of right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Asked by reporters about her pending message to Gantz, she said they would discuss getting the hostage deal done, getting more aid in to Gaza and “getting that six-week cease-fire”, the pool report said.“The president has been an extraordinary leader in getting us to this point that we have the six-week deal,” she said, adding, in response to a question about whether there is any difference between her and Joe Biden’s stance on these issues right now: “The president and I have been aligned and consistent from the very beginning.”The White House has just issued an additional statement that talks with Gantz will focus on a deal to bring remaining hostages held by Hamas in Gaza to safety, and more progress in delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.Here’s what Harris just posted on X/Twitter a day after marking the civil rights anniversary, Bloody Sunday, in Alabama.Hamas and Egyptian mediators said on Monday they were pressing on with talks on securing a ceasefire in Gaza, despite an Israeli decision not to send a delegation, Reuters reports.The ceasefire talks, which began on Sunday in Cairo, are billed as a final hurdle to establish the first extended ceasefire of the five-month-old war, in time for the Ramadan Muslim fasting month which is expected to begin on Sunday.Israel has declined to comment publicly on the Cairo talks, including its decision not to attend. A source told Reuters Israel would stay away because Hamas refused a request to list which hostages are still alive, information the Palestinian militants say they will provide only once terms are agreed.
    Talks in Cairo continue for the second day regardless of whether the occupation’s delegation is present in Egypt,” a Hamas official told Reuters on Monday.
    Two Egyptian security sources said mediators were in touch with the Israelis, allowing negotiations to continue despite the delegation’s absence.A Palestinian source close to the talks said the discussions remained “uneasy”, with Israel sticking to its demand for only a temporary truce to free hostages, while Hamas was seeking assurances war would not start up again.Late on Monday, officials from Hamas, Egypt and Qatar began a second round of talks for the day, a Hamas source said.Washington, which is both Israel’s closest ally and a sponsor of the talks, says a deal remains close, with an agreement already effectively approved by Israel and only awaiting acceptance from Hamas.A temporary ceasefire is essential to a deal to release more of the hostages still held by Hamas since they were snatched during the attack by the Islamist group that controls Gaza on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to the White House.This news is still emerging over the wires and we’ll bring you details as they unfold. The White House just said there will be additional air drops of US aid over Gaza, which is besieged by Israel and where the north of the territory is almost cut off from aid entirely.Reuters is reporting that the White House stated that the US calls on Hamas to accept terms of a ceasefire and hostage release deal now. More as we get it.US vice president Kamala Harris is due to meet in Washington later this afternoon with Israeli war cabinet member Benny Gantz, a centrist and key rival to the hard right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.The meeting is due to take place at 3pm ET and comes a day after Harris, who was in Alabama for the Bloody Sunday anniversary, urged an “immediate ceasefire” and bluntly called out Israel for not doing enough to ease a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.Gantz is defying Netanyahu’s wishes in his visit to the US and sit-downs with leaders. He also plans to meet up with secretary of state Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan.Joe Biden has been at Camp David since the weekend, hunkered down as he prepares this Thursday’s mega-high stakes State of the Union address.The supreme court overturned a Colorado ruling that barred Donald Trump from the state’s ballot for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, issuing a decision that judges nationwide will likely cite to allow him to compete in the remaining Republican primaries, and the November general election. However, the court’s three liberal justices and one conservative worried that the authors of the majority opinion went further than necessary, though for different reasons. In remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump thanked the court for their ruling, while also encouraging them to find him immune from prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. That matter has yet to be decided.Here’s what else is going today:
    Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s former finance chief, pleaded guilty to perjury in New York City.
    Trump’s allies in Congress, including House speaker Mike Johnson and potential vice-presidential pick Elise Stefanik were also pleased with the supreme court’s ruling.
    The justices did not absolve Trump of the charge that he was involved in an insurrection, noted Neal Katyal, who used to argued before the supreme court on behalf of Barack Obama.
    But Donald Trump’s business with the supreme court isn’t finished, and the former president made a point of mentioning that in his speech.The justices have agreed to take up his argument that he is immune from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat, and a ruling in his favor could deal a death blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s case against him.At Mar-a-Lago, Trump said he hoped the high court would once again rule in his favor:
    And while we’re on the subject, and another thing that will be coming up very soon, will be immunity for a president, and not immunity for me, but for any president. If a president doesn’t have full immunity, you really don’t have a president, because nobody that is serving in that office will have the courage to make, in many cases, what would be the right decision, or it could be the wrong decision. It could be in some cases the wrong decision, but they have to make decisions and they have to make them free of all terror that can be rained upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office, and some decisions are very tough.
    I can tell you that as a president that some decisions to make are very tough. I took out ISIS and I took out some very big people from the standpoint of a different part of the world, two of the leading terrorists, probably the two leading terrorists ever, that we’ve ever seen in this world. And those are big decisions. I don’t want to be prosecuted for it.
    The charges against Trump don’t deal with his decisions to kill America’s enemies, but rather his multi-pronged strategy to block Joe Biden from taking office.Donald Trump is now delivering a meandering speech at Mar-a-Lago, where he has cheered the supreme court ruling allowing him to stay on presidential ballots, while also issuing familiar denunciations of the criminal cases against him.At the start of his remarks, the former president thanked the supreme court, saying the decision was “very well crafted. And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs. And … they worked hard.”Donald Trump is expected to soon deliver remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after the supreme court this morning overturned a Colorado ruling that removed him from the presidential ballot.The court’s unanimous decision is expected to allow him to remain on primary and general election ballots nationwide and thwart a legal campaign to remove him over his participation in the January 6 insurrection.We’ll let you know what Trump says.As expected, Donald Trump’s former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg has admitted to committing perjury in New York City. It’s unclear what that will mean for the former president’s upcoming trial on charges related to paying hush money, but one thing that is clear is that Weisselberg is likely headed back to jail.Here’s more on all that, from the Guardian’s Callum Jones:
    Allen Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald Trump, faces five months in jail after reaching an agreement with prosecutors in New York to plead guilty to perjury in the former US president’s recent civil fraud trial charges.
    As the former chief financial officer in the Trump Organization, Weisselberg was key in helping Trump record his net worth. A defendant in the fraud trial, Weisselberg was accused of helping to inflate Trump’s net worth on government financial documents, misleading lenders.
    That trial ended with a judge imposing a huge financial penalty of more than $450m including interest on Trump. Weisselberg, 76, was ordered to pay $1.1m and permanently banned from serving in the financial control function of any New York business.
    Weisselberg also faces five months in jail after pleading guilty to perjury.
    On the witness stand in October, Weisselberg was evasive, often saying he did not recall the real estate valuations that were at the center of the trial.
    Donald Trump’s many Republican allies in Congress welcomed the supreme court’s ruling allowing him to continue his run for president.Here’s speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a leader of the failed effort to get the supreme court to block Joe Biden’s election victory in 2020:
    Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed what we all knew: the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in a purely partisan attack against the frontrunner for the Republican presidential primary. States engaging in the same activist, undemocratic behaviors should take notice and leave it to the American people to decide who will be president.
    And New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a member of House Republican leadership who is also seen as a potential running mate for Trump:
    Today’s unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision is a victory for the American people, the Constitution, and our Republic. As I have said since the start, extreme Democrats will shred the Constitution in order to prevent the American people from exercising their constitutional right to vote for President Donald Trump. This dangerous attempt by the radical Left to suppress votes was fundamentally unAmerican and why I was proud to sign on to the amicus brief to the Supreme Court. We the people decide elections, not unelected radical leftists.
    Finally, Jim Jordan, the Ohio congressman and chair of the House judiciary committee who has used the committee’s powers to pursue Joe Biden and his officials:
    Big win for common sense and democracy!
    From the Guardian’s Sam Levine, here’s more on what the supreme court’s decision today will mean for Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House:Donald Trump was wrongly removed from Colorado’s primary ballot last year, the US supreme court has ruled, clearing the way for Trump to appear on the ballot in all 50 states.The court’s unanimous decision overturns a 4-3 ruling from the Colorado supreme court that said the former president could not run because he had engaged in insurrection during the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The Colorado decision was a novel interpretation of section 3 of the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from holding office.“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. Congress, the court said, had to enact the procedures for disqualification under Section 3.“State-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that the President … represent[s] all the voters in the Nation,” the court added.Colorado’s presidential primary is Tuesday and Trump had been allowed to appear on the ballot while the case was pending. Maine and a judge in Illinois had also excluded Trump from the ballot – decisions that are now likely to quickly be reversed.A few points about the supreme court’s decision allowing Donald Trump to continue running for president, from the Neal Katyal, a former justice department official who argued supreme court cases on behalf of Barack Obama: More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    Cookie Monster and Ohio senator make odd allies in shrinkflation complaint

    The Ohio Democratic senator Sherrod Brown endorsed a key voice in the American public square – Cookie Monster – in a complaint about shrinkflation.“Me hate shrinkflation!” the Sesame Street character posted on social media on Monday, referring to an economic phenomenon Merriam-Webster defines as “the practice of reducing a product’s amount or volume per unit while continuing to offer it at the same price”.“Me cookies are getting smaller,” Cookie Monster added, appending a frowning face emoji.Brown, a leading progressive in the US Senate facing a tough fight for re-election, said: “Me too, Cookie Monster. Big corporations shrink the size of their products without shrinking their prices, all to pay for CEO bonuses. People in my state of Ohio are fed up – they should get all the cookie they pay for.”Cookie Monster’s tweet was not the first from a Sesame Street character to make news in recent weeks. Last month, Elmo, the particularly toddler-friendly red furry muppet, prompted an outpouring of existential dread when he simply asked followers: “How is everybody doing?”Nor was Brown the first prominent Democrat to seize on shrinkflation as a campaign issue. Last month, Joe Biden used a video released on Super Bowl Sunday to say the American public was “tired of being played for suckers” by makers of popular snacks.“Some companies are trying to pull a fast one by shrinking the products little by little and hoping you won’t notice,” the president said.“Sports drinks bottles are smaller, a bag of chips has fewer chips, but they’re still charging just as much. As an ice-cream lover, what makes me the most angry is that ice-cream cartons have actually shrunk in size.”Biden’s love for ice cream is as well known as Cookie Monster’s love for cookies, though both president and puppet have advocated for children to eat healthy foods too.Among some observers, Brown’s agreement with Cookie Monster about the evils of shrinkflation prompted thoughts of another similarity between the senator and the Sesame Street star.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBoth are known and celebrated for distinctive, gravelly voices.The historian Kevin M Kruse once said Brown sounded “like Tom Waits smoked a carton of Pall Malls and gargled hot asphalt”.Cookie Monster – originally provided by the celebrated puppeteer Frank Oz, now performed by David Rudman – has also been widely compared to Waits. More