Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Judge hears closing arguments in ‘daytime soap opera’ Fani Willis hearing

    A Fulton county judge began hearing closing arguments on Friday afternoon in a three-day evidentiary hearing to determine whether the district attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from handling the election interference against Donald Trump because of her romantic relationship with a deputy handling the case.The hearing has offered a dramatic deviation from the racketeering case against the former US president and 14 remaining co-defendants for trying to overturn the election in Georgia.The matter kicked off in January when Michael Roman, a Republican operative and one of the defendants in the case, filed a motion claiming Willis financially benefitted from the case because of a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a top prosecutor in the case. Trump and several other defendants later joined the request.Willis and Wade both admitted to a romantic relationship, but both said it only began after he was hired on 1 November 2021. They both testified about vacations they had taken together and revealed personal details about a romantic relationship that they say only began in 2022, after he was hired, and ended last summer.A star witness who was supposed to undercut their claims ultimately failed to produce meaningful evidence.On the surface, the question at the heart of the matter was whether Willis had a conflict of interest because of her relationship with Wade. But over several hours of testimony, lawyers for Roman, Trump and the other defendants did not produce any concrete evidence showing that she did.Willis testified that she repaid Wade in cash for any travel they had taken together – a claim that drew skepticism from defense lawyers, but no evidence to prove otherwise.“This was a disqualification hearing that quickly denigrated into a daytime soap opera,” said J Tom Morgan, a former district attorney in DeKalb county, a Fulton county neighbor. “Have they proven a conflict of interest, where this all started, absolutely not.”Lawyers may use Friday’s hearing to try and introduce additional evidence, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported, including cellphone records that defense lawyers say undercut Wade’s claims that he never spent the night at Willis’s condo.It’s not exactly clear what the standard Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing the case, will use to determine whether Willis should be disqualified. Georgia law allows for a prosecutor to be disqualified if there is an actual conflict of interest. Experts say state law has long established this high bar to clear and the defendants in the case have not done so.But McAfee has suggested that defense lawyers may not need to prove an actual conflict, but merely the appearance of one. “I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” he said at a recent hearing.Robert CI McBurney, a different Fulton county judge who was overseeing the case at an earlier stage, disqualified Willis from investigating a fake elector after she appeared at a fundraiser for his political rival. That appearance, he said, would lead to questions about her motives in every step of the case, which was enough to disqualify her.A disqualification would upend the case and delay it past the 2024 election. The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, a state agency, would have the sole discretion to reassign the case to another prosecutor, and there’s no timeline for how long that could take.But even if Willis and Wade aren’t disqualified, defense attorneys have used the hearings to damage the two prosecutors’ judgment and credibility in the public’s eye.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBy bringing to light something they failed to disclose on their own, they’ve seeded the impression that the two were trying to conceal something.While it may not stand up legally, defense lawyers have also showed text messages from an associate of Nathan Wade’s in which he says the affair “absolutely” began before he was hired (the witness, Terrence Bradley, later testified he was only speculating). They also put a former friend of Willis on the stand that said she was certain the relationship began before Wade was hired. And they have also sought to introduce cellphone evidence that could undermine Wade’s claims he never spent the night at Willis’s condo before the relationship began.“I was standing in the grocery store and I would guess that the two women in front of me have not really paid much attention to this case or the politics,” Morgan said. “But they start talking about the text messages … it’s more interesting. People who haven’t paid any attention to this all of a sudden are paying attention to it.”Morgan also said the timing or existence of a relationship between Willis and Wade wasn’t really relevant to whether there was a conflict of interest. But during the hearing, the two prosecutors had boxed themselves in to a story that the romantic relationship only began after Wade was hired.Any evidence that comes to light questioning that undermines their credibility and could lead to accusations of perjury. Willis herself has said with certainty that the relationship definitely did not begin until after Wade was hired, but also acknowledged that it was difficult to say exactly when a romantic relationship begins.“It’s not like when you’re in grade school and you send a little letter saying, will you be my girlfriend? and you check it,” she said during one point in the hearing.More than anything, Trump’s team has succeeded in muddying the waters of the case and taking the attention off his efforts to undermine democracy. Willis underscores that when she testified during the first day of the hearing.“You’re confused. You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial,” she said. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘Absurd’: Gavin Newsom hits back over Panera wage-exemption puzzle

    Gavin Newsom is hitting back at a news report that he pushed for an exception to the state’s new fast-food minimum wage law that benefits a wealthy campaign donor.California’s minimum wage is $16 per hour. But starting on 1 April, most fast-food restaurants in the state must pay their workers at least $20 an hour under legislation Newsom signed last year. However, the law does not apply to restaurants that have on-site bakeries and sell bread as a standalone menu item.That exception puzzled some industry watchers, and was never fully explained by Newsom or other supporters of the law. Then on Wednesday, Bloomberg News reported that the exemption was linked to opposition from the Panera Bread franchisee Greg Flynn, whose company owns 24 of the restaurants in California and has donated to Newsom’s campaigns.“This story is absurd,” the California governor’s spokesman, Alex Stack, said on Thursday.Stack said that the governor’s legal team believes Panera Bread is not exempt from the law. They said that to be exempt from the minimum wage law as a bakery, restaurants must produce bread for sale on site. The governor’s office said many chain bakeries, such as Panera Bread, mix dough at a centralized off-site location and then ship that dough to the restaurant for baking and sale.Since last year, Panera Bread has been reported as a restaurant exempt from the law and Newsom’s office has not said otherwise, even when the governor was directly asked why the chain was exempt.A message left with Panera Bread about their baking process was not immediately returned.Stack said the governor never met with Flynn about the law. A message left with the Flynn Group was not returned on Thursday. Flynn told Bloomberg he did not play a role in crafting the exemption.The Bloomberg story, citing anonymous sources, says Flynn urged the governor’s top aides to consider whether chains such as Panera should be considered fast food. It does not say that Newsom and Flynn spoke directly about the law.The Flynn Group and Flynn Properties operate 2,600 restaurants and fitness centers across 44 states, according to the company’s website. Campaign finance records show Flynn Properties and Greg Flynn – the founder, chairman and chief executive – have donated more than $220,000 to Newsom’s political campaigns since 2017. That included a $100,000 donation to Newsom’s campaign to defeat a recall attempt in 2021.The minimum wage law passed in 2023. In 2022, Flynn had publicly opposed a similar proposal, writing in an op-ed in Capitol Weekly that it would “effectively kill the franchise business model in the state”.Republican leaders in the state Legislature on Thursday criticized Newsom for the possible connection.“Put simply, campaign contributions should not buy carveouts in legislation,” the Republican state senate leader Brian Jones said. “It’s unacceptable.”Assemblymember James Gallagher, the Republican leader in the assembly, said the attorney general, Rob Bonta, or another entity responsible for investigating conflicts of interest should look into the matter.“This exemption, there is no explanation for it. Someone had to push for it,” he said.The law was authored by Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena, who told reporters on Thursday he was not involved in the negotiations over the bill’s final amendments, which included the $20 minimum wage increase and the exemption for bakeries.He said those talks happened between the business community and labor unions – groups Holden said were brought together “through the governor’s leadership”.Holden said he did not know Flynn or his status as a Newsom campaign donor. He declined to discuss if there were any legitimate policy reasons for exempting bakeries from the law.“I’m not going to try to start parceling every individual group,” Holden said. “The way that the bill moved forward, everyone who’s in is in.”Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at the University of Southern California and the University of California Berkeley, said the issue had the potential to damage Newsom, much like when Newsom went to dinner at the French Laundry during the pandemic at a time when he was urging people to avoid public gatherings to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. That issue gave momentum to an effort to recall Newsom from office, which eventually qualified for the ballot in 2021 but was ultimately unsuccessful.“The last time the governor got in the middle of a restaurant-related controversy, his hesitation to address it turned a small problem into a much bigger one,” Schur said. “It’s more than possible that there is a perfectly reasonable substantive policy-based reason for this exception. But if that reason exists, the governor is obligated to share it with the people of California. Otherwise they’ll assume that he did a big favor for a big donor.” More

  • 125 Shares159 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump says Texas governor Greg Abbott ‘absolutely’ on vice-president shortlist

    Greg Abbott, the hard-right governor of Texas, is “absolutely” on Donald Trump’s shortlist for vice-president should Trump as expected win the Republican nomination to face Joe Biden.Calling Abbott a “spectacular man”, Trump told Sean Hannity of Fox News the three-term governor, an anti-immigration extremist, had “done a great job”, adding: “Yeah, certainly he would be somebody that I would very much consider.”“So he’s on the list?” Hannity said.“Absolutely, he is,” Trump said, as Abbott listened.Abbott has engineered showdowns with Democratic authorities, sending undocumented migrants to Democratic-run cities, and with the federal government, blocking border patrol access to the Rio Grande river at a common crossing point for migrants, then refusing to comply with orders to back off.“He really stepped it up,” Trump said of Abbott on Thursday, during a visit to the spot in question, a park in Eagle Pass, part of a Texas trip the same day Biden visited the border elsewhere.Abbott, Trump said, had “been amazing”.Abbott, however, told CNN last week “there’s so many people other than myself who are best situated” to be Trump’s running mate, adding that he would help Trump pick. On Wednesday, Abbott told CBS he intended to run for a fourth term in Texas.At Trump’s direction, Republicans are attempting to use conditions at the southern border for political gain in an election year, to the extent of the congressional GOP blocking a hardline, bipartisan deal negotiated in the Senate.In his own border trip, Biden said Trump should “join me” in addressing the problem.Trump’s dominance of his party is near-complete. This week he enjoyed a major victory when Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Republican Senate leader since 2006 but at odds with Trump since the attack on Congress of 6 January 2021, said he would step down this year.In Texas, Trump said Abbott should replace McConnell.“I’d rather be governor of Texas,” Abbott said.“I think you’re doing well,” Trump said. “I want to keep you in Texas.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump is all but certain to again capture the Republican presidential nomination, having won all primary contests and with the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, his last opponent, seen as likely to drop out after Super Tuesday next week.Trump enjoys such dominance despite facing 91 criminal charges from four indictments, multimillion-dollar civil reversals over his business affairs and an allegation of rape a judge called “substantially true”, and attempts to remove him from the ballot for inciting January 6, most recently in Illinois.Informal auditions for Trump’s running mate continue.Hannity asked Trump about his shortlist. Trump gave a less-than-glowing assessment of the presidential campaign mounted by the South Carolina senator Tim Scott, who dropped out early and pivoted to fawning support.“Tim, for himself, he was fine,” Trump said. “He did OK. I mean, he was OK as a candidate, but he didn’t want to talk about himself. He’s a very good man. For me, he’s unbelievable. He’s a surrogate.”Other candidates Trump has mentioned include Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota; Elise Stefanik of New York, the No 3 House Republican; the biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, a former primary rival; Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii; and Byron Donalds, a far-right congressman from Florida.Others said to be in the running include JD Vance, a populist senator from Ohio; Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the governor of Arkansas who was Trump’s second White House press secretary; and Katie Britt, a senator from Alabama. More

  • 175 Shares129 Views

    in US Politics

    Is Biden’s student debt action enough to win back young voters angry over Gaza?

    Maxwell Frost, the only gen Z member of Congress, was front and center when Joe Biden announced last week that he was canceling $1.2bn of student loan debt for more than 150,000 Americans.“President Biden knows that canceling student debt is an important issue for young people across our country,” said Frost, who has been a surrogate for Biden’s campaign. “The president’s actions on student debt are in stark contrast with Donald Trump, who spent his entire time in office sabotaging efforts to aid borrowers who are just trying to make ends meet.”Frost’s comments underline how much Biden wants young voters to know that he hasn’t given up on fixing student debt, even after the supreme court struck down his cancellation plan last summer.But like some of Biden’s other most progressive policies convincing young voters that he has a decent track record on the issues – not least the war in Gaza – that will drive them to the ballot box is proving challenging.“[Biden] coming to the table to talk about student debt forgiveness is a huge win ,” said Antonio Arellano, NextGen’s vice-president of communications.“In America, young voters right now are the largest eligible voting bloc in modern American history, surpassing baby boomers. And they’re being very clear about where they stand,” Arellano said. “So it would be in the best interest of the administration to listen to the young people that are simply demanding humanitarian priorities and protections for folks that are just in the crosshairs of this greater war.”When contrasted against Trump, Biden’s student loan policies appear decidedly progressive. Biden’s federal student loan program would have seen 43 million borrowers receive some relief, including up to $20,000 off loans for some borrowers. But the supreme court’s conservative majority, including the three justices appointed by Trump, struck down the plan last June.The ruling was a blow to millions of borrowers across the country. An estimated 45 million Americans hold a total of $1.6tn in student loan debt.“The fight is not over,” Biden vowed after the decision, noting that the “hypocrisy of Republican elected officials is stunning”.Since then, Biden has kicked off several loan forgiveness measures along with piecemeal cancellations worth up to $138bn for 3.9 million borrowers. The most recent cancellation was targeted toward those who had borrowed $12,000 or less and have had their debt for at least 10 years. Many of these borrowers probably have much higher debts because of accumulated interest over the years.The White House has been instituting “huge fixes to the broken student debt system. It’s not debt cancellation … but these are drastic changes”, said Natalia Abrams, president and founder of the Student Debt Crisis Center, a student borrower advocacy group.Biden’s continued poor polling on student debt may be in part down to timing. Young voters may not be seeing the immediate relief themselves. Even if young low- and middle-income are on Biden’s new Save plan, which adjusts monthly payments based on a borrowers monthly income, those on the plan won’t see forgiveness after at least 20 years.“They haven’t been borrowing for 10 years,” Abrams said. “I can see how young people, because they’re new to the lending system, feel left out … but [student debt] is impacting people of all ages.”Student debt remains one of the biggest issues motivating young voters. The national youth-focused nonpartisan voter registration and education program NextGen says emails and call-outs about student debt get the most engagement on their site. But young voters see Biden’s policies on the issue in a wider context of other issues, particularly the Israel-Gaza war.When the White House announced where Biden would be delivering a speech on his most recent student debt cancellation, it waited a day before to disclose the location, likely to avoid another one of the many pro-Palestinian protests that have interrupted his events for months.“Doing a few good things here like canceling student debt and continuing on those promises [Biden] made won’t take away from a lot of bad things we’re doing elsewhere,” said Usamah Andrabi, communications director for the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Not to take away from the student debt crisis – that’s incredibly important. But canceling student debt does not make people forget that you are aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing and murder of nearly 30,000 Palestinian people and supporting a far-right extremist government in Israel that is doing it,” Andrabi said.Andrabi said addressing one outstanding issue while ignoring another is “almost patronizing” to young voters.“To think that they would all of a sudden forget that millions of them have been in the streets for months demanding a ceasefire is insufficient. It hasn’t cleaned the slate for what has happened to the Palestinian people,” Andrabi said.Many of the issues important to young voters – including student debt, climate justice, reproductive justice and the violence in Gaza – are “inseparable”, Andrabi argues. Financially contributing to the Israeli military while they drop bombs and rockets on the Gaza strip produce carbon emissions which heat the planet.“We’re also seeing a reproductive health crisis in Gaza,” Andrabi said, referencing the tens of thousands of pregnancies in Gaza classified as high-risk due to the violence.“It’s not that one issue is more important than the other – I think every voter has their own calculus. But to act like this is a completely separate issue for a group of voters would be incorrect, especially as we’re seeing so many of the same problems happen to the Palestinian people.”Strategists say Biden is likely relying on young voters supporting him as the candidate against Trump, rather than for his own policies as president. That’s why some Democrats in Michigan, like the US congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, are pushing voters to protest his stance on the Israel-Gaza war by marking themselves as “uncommitted” in the upcoming primary.“There’s a lot of frustration … and the administration not only needs to hear those concerns, but they need to feel them,” said Michael Starr Hopkins, a Democratic strategist. “One of the biggest mistakes they’ve made is not acknowledging people’s concern. They internalize them, but they don’t show externally that they’re taking it into consideration.”Hopkins noted that Biden’s strength can be conveying empathy. “He is always better when he comes out and acknowledges people’s pain and suffering.” More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘Huge tax breaks’: private equity prepares for a boon from Congress

    Some of largest and most profitable companies in the US are primed to save billions of dollars from a congressional tax deal that critics say gives “billions in tax credits to the biggest corporations while giving pennies to middle-class children and families”. And private equity funds could be among the deal’s biggest beneficiaries, a Guardian analysis suggests.The tax cuts passed the House of Representatives at the end of January as part of an agreement that pairs handouts for businesses with a moderate expansion of the child tax credit. The Senate could vote on the bill over the coming weeks, and the White House has indicated that Joe Biden would sign it into law.The deal, led by Democratic senator Ron Wyden and Republican congressman Jason Smith – the chairs of Congress’s tax-writing committees – would roll back a series of tax measures that were designed to partially offset the cost of the 2017 Trump tax cuts.Weakening these provisions would allow companies to claim bigger tax deductions for certain expenses, including buying new equipment, spending money on research and development, and paying interest on their debt, as the Guardian previously reported.Last year the American Investment Council (AIC), private equity’s main trade group, spent more than $3m lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets – more than any single year since 2009. Including their subsidiaries, five of the country’s largest private equity funds – Blackstone Group, KKR & Company, Carlyle Group, Cerberus Capital Management and Apollo Global Management – together spent an additional $21m lobbying over the same period.“Increasing the interest deductions, which private equity firms have been the worst abusers of, is just another example of how the Wyden-Smith tax deal hands out billions in tax credits to the biggest corporations while giving pennies to middle-class children and families,” the Democratic congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, one of two dozen House Democrats who voted against the bill, told the Guardian.“While private equity is cheering on the huge tax breaks they will get if this deal passes the Senate, American families are living paycheck to paycheck and struggling with rising costs.”‘Debt can supercharge the returns of private equity’Tax policy experts told the Guardian that raising the cap on interest deductibility could provide an especially generous subsidy for private equity funds, which rely heavily on debt.“The model of the private equity industry is often to … buy public corporations, take them private and load them up with debt,” said Steve Wamhoff of the non-profit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. These heavy debt burdens help explain why companies bought by private equity funds are about 10 times more likely than other firms to go bankrupt.“The deductions that are allowed for interest expenses really make that a more viable business model,” Wamhoff said.Debt is cheaper when companies get a tax break for deducting the interest they pay on that debt, and “cheaper money, which has to be repaid by their takeover targets, is what makes private equity go,” said Carter Dougherty of Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), an advocacy coalition.“The magic of the private equity business model, and the way that it’s able to generate outsized returns, is its reliance on debt for the acquisition,” said Brendan Ballou, author of Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America.If you invest $20m in a business and get 10% returns, you only get $2m back,” Ballou explained. “But if, of that $20m, you actually only put up $2m yourself, you actually make 100% return. So debt, or leverage, allows you to get bigger returns than you normally would if you actually had to put up your own cash.”That’s how “debt can supercharge the returns of private equity”, Ballou said.Asked for comment, the AIC referred the Guardian to two letters previously signed by the group, one of which states that “debt financing plays an important role in supporting job-creating investments”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“There’s already a strong bias in the tax code for debt, and this bill doubles down on that bias to boost private equity’s predatory practices, which will only drive more American companies into bankruptcy and decrease market competition,” said the Texas congressman Lloyd Doggett, one of three Democrats who voted against the bill in the House ways and means committee, in a statement.“There’s nothing fair about private equity companies lining their pockets while shifting the tax burden to American families already dealing with high costs.”‘A complete wasteful giveaway’The Trump tax law established new limitations on how much interest companies could deduct from their tax bills in a single year. That annual cap on interest deductions was tightened further in 2022.Higher interest rates have made debt more expensive, so private equity funds have found themselves having to invest more of their own money, rather than relying as extensively on borrowed money.That shift, in turn, has lowered potential returns, adding to the industry’s sense of urgency to loosen the cap on interest deductions, AFR’s Carter Dougherty said.Not only would the Wyden-Smith deal undo the tighter limit created by the Trump law, but it would do so retroactively, meaning corporations could amend their 2022 and 2023 tax returns to take advantage of the newly generous subsidies.Making these tax cuts retroactive “would be just a complete wasteful giveaway”, Chye-Ching Huang, the executive director of the Tax Law Center at the New York University School of Law, told the Senate finance committee last November. “You can’t change past investments or wages by giving away tax cuts.”Loosening the interest deduction threshold would cost $64bn over the next 10 years if it were made permanent, according to an estimate provided to members of the House ways and means committee by the US Congress’s non-partisan joint committee on taxation.While the Wyden-Smith deal only rolls back the provision through 2025, tax policy experts told the Guardian that corporations and their trade groups would probably work to extend it further.In a statement to the Guardian, a Wyden spokesperson said: “The provision dealing with business interest was a Republican priority in negotiations, and it’s clear that it would become law in a Republican Congress without any matching benefit for working families. With the support of finance committee Democrats, Senator Wyden set a standard for this divided Congress that any tax cuts for corporations must be matched with an investment in children and families that the Joint Committee on Taxation scores as equal, and that’s why the bill includes a child tax credit expansion that helps 16 million children from low-income families get ahead.”Smith’s office did not respond to a request for comment. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    A young woman’s killing in Georgia stokes a familiar rightwing war

    All murders are not treated equally.The killing of the 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley on the campus of the University of Georgia on 22 February has drawn national media interest and political activity in ways that other homicide cases do not, in part because it provides an easy target for rightwing election sloganeering.Homicide rates fell by historic amounts last year after a spike in violence during the pandemic. Early estimates suggest that across the country violence has returned to near-60-year lows.Despite the data, most Americans believe violence is increasing because violence increasingly drives media attention. And the murder of any young woman by a stranger is bound to draw additional news coverage simply because these killings are rare. FBI statistics show 3,653 women were murdered in 2022 – comprising fewer than one in four victims – and according to data tracked by the Violence Policy Center, about 92% of women who are murdered know their attacker. The murder of Laken Riley by a stranger is statistically one in a million.Where Riley died adds to the attention.The campus of the University of Georgia holds particular social and political significance among Georgians. A murder on campus is, for many, a desecration of hallowed ground. UGA is a dominant force in Georgia sports culture. Three out of four college students in Georgia attend a state school, and the flagship university is a top goal for almost all of them. About a quarter of state legislators are University of Georgia alumni, as are five of Georgia’s 14 Congress members and Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp.But the main reason we know Riley’s name, and not the names of the other 300-350 women killed by a stranger in the last year, or the names of the other eight people being held on a murder charge at the Clarke county jail, is because the suspect – 26-year-old Jose Ibarra – is an undocumented migrant who has been previously charged with a crime without being deported, and the victim is young, female and white. Of such things are press conferences born.“It is an understatement to say that this is a major crisis,” Kemp said on Monday morning during a news conference, attacking the Biden administration on its immigration enforcement policies. “Because of the White House’s failures, every state is now a border state. Laken Riley’s murder is just the latest proof of that.”Georgia’s state penitentiaries hold about 50,000 prisoners, and according to the Georgia department of corrections, about 1,600 prisoners had ICE detention orders at the end of January, up by about 100 since the start of Biden’s term as a result of increased enforcement activity. Of all Georgia’s prisoners, about 9,100 have been imprisoned for killing someone – murder, manslaughter or other homicides. Of the 7,050 murderers, 182 are subject to deportation.Estimates from the Pew Research Center suggest that Georgia’s undocumented population fell between 2011 and 2021 by more than 10%, to about 350,000, or about 3.2% of Georgia’s residents. Immigrants – legal and illegal – are less likely to be charged with an act of violence than the native-born US population.View image in fullscreen“There’s a long and unfortunate history of politicizing immigrants and suggesting that they commit crimes at higher rates,” said Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications and public affairs for the Migration Policy Institute, and a UGA alumna. “As we’ve seen in US context … they see anecdotal reporting of individual, sad tragedies that they somehow extrapolate that this, therefore, means that a whole class of people are more likely to commit crime.”The media amplification of stories about an innocent female victim killed by a person of color is a historical trope in southern politics that harkens back to Reconstruction-era politics. Conservatives have made immigration central to their political messaging today, often disregarding the ugly history of this commentary when a case like the Riley murder presents itself.Enter Donald Trump.“Crooked Joe Biden’s Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The horrible murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley at the University of Georgia should have NEVER happened! The monster who took her life illegally entered our Country in 2022 … and then was released AGAIN by Radical Democrats in New York after injuring a CHILD!!”Trump has habitually amplified murder cases when the victim is an American citizen and the accused is not. Laken Riley’s death has provided him another opportunity.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn 2016, the Trump campaign rallied around the prosecution of Jose Ines Garcia-Zarate, who was charged with fatally shooting Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco. Garcia-Zarate, a homeless undocumented migrant who had been repeatedly deported, was ultimately acquitted of murder in 2017 and subsequently pleaded guilty to a weapon possession charge.Legislators have begun agitating for changes to Georgia law in response to the Riley case.“There are certainly also questions surrounding the administration of justice at the local level, and house leadership will be pressing for answers over the coming days as to why exactly the suspect and his brother continued to roam freely in the Athens area,” wrote the Georgia House speaker, Jon Burns, the day after Ibarra’s arrest. Three bills are advancing quickly through the legislative process, one mandating that police and sheriff’s departments help identify, arrest and detain undocumented immigrants for deportation.The high-profile death in Athens, Georgia, intensified the spotlight on the county’s district attorney, Deborah Gonzalez, long a target for conservative lawmakers for progressive policies. Gonzalez has called for a special prosecutor for Ibarra’s case, and declared she would not pursue the death penalty.Congressman Mike Collins, who represents Athens in Congress, sent a letter to Athens’ mayor, Kelly Girtz, and the Clarke county sheriff, John Q Williams, yesterday demanding they end “sanctuary” policies for undocumented migrants. Collins cited the sheriff’s policy of refusing to comply with immigration detainers for 48-hour holds, and an Athens-Clarke county resolution “to foster a community where individuals and families of all statuses feel safe, are able to prosper, and can breathe free”.Georgia state law expressly forbids Georgia cities from adopting “sanctuary city” policies of noncompliance with federal immigration policies, but Collins suggested in the letter that Athens had become one “in word and deed”, citing the Center for Immigrations Studies’ listing the county as a sanctuary city.The Center for Immigration Studies was founded by the avowed white supremacist John Tanton and is itself listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.Leaders among Georgia’s immigrant-oriented organizations met on Wednesday to formulate a response to the politicization of the Riley murder. “I have a 21-year-old daughter that goes to college in Nashville, you know, and I worry about her constantly. And so my first reaction was as a father, as a human being – it was heartbreaking, you know, devastating,” said Santiago Marquez, CEO of the Latin American Association in Georgia.“My second reaction was one of great disappointment, because, you know, I just couldn’t anticipate what was going to come and … you know, there will be a lot of backlash in our community.” More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    Mitch McConnell steps down, Donald Trump wins again – podcast

    Sometimes there are weeks when the news just keeps on coming. This week, the longest-serving US senator, Mitch McConnell, announced he would step down, the US supreme court agreed to take up the claim that Donald Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution in the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, Congress avoided another government shutdown and Donald Trump continued his winning streak in the Michigan primary.
    In some ways, the Republican party is the exact same one we saw get behind Trump in 2016 and then again in 2020, but there are many out there who see major events such as these as proof that it has changed – irreversibly.
    This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to the former Republican strategist and legendary political operative Mike Murphy about the state of the party he once served

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump again presses for delay of classified documents trial until 2025

    Lawyers for Donald Trump have once again suggested to the federal judge overseeing his criminal case on retaining classified documents that the trial should not take place this year, even as they complied with a court order that forced them to propose a potential start date.On Thursday, the former president reluctantly proposed two trial dates, under orders from US district judge Aileen Cannon: a 12 August trial date for Trump and the Mar-a-Lago club maintenance chief Carlos De Oliveira, and a 9 September trial date for Trump’s valet Walt Nauta.But the nine-page court filing from Trump was clear in its tone and reasoning that a trial should not take place until 2025, claiming that prosecutors were seeking to rush to trial on an unprecedented schedule because they wanted an outcome before the presidential election in November.In a filing submitted at the same time on Thursday, prosecutors in the office of the special counsel Jack Smith asked Cannon to schedule the trial for 8 July for all three defendants, a date that would almost certainly ensure that a verdict get returned before the 2024 election.Trump’s request marked his latest attempt to push back the case, having taken every opportunity to ask Cannon to delay proceedings since he was indicted last year for violating the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.In their first request to delay the trial indefinitely, Trump claimed he could not get a fair trial while he was running for office, asking the judge to also take into account the political calendar in the months before the election.That argument was repeated again in the new filing, which also claimed that Trump’s status as the presumptive GOP nominee meant prosecutors would be violating justice department rules that prohibit overt investigative steps close to an election if a trial took place this year.Whether Cannon will acquiesce to Trump’s request remains uncertain. Last year, she implicitly rejected Trump’s arguments concerning the election when she set a tentative trial date for May, finding a middle ground between the dueling schedules that Trump and prosecutors had proposed.The judge could again attempt to find a middle ground as she weighs setting a new trial date, with the pre-trial phase of the documents case running roughly four months behind schedule, according to a Guardian analysis.The documents case has been mired in delays as a result of how slowly Cannon has proceeded through the seven-step process laid out in the Classified Information Procedures Act, which governs how classified documents can be introduced at trial in Espionage Act cases.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump could have an advantage in trying to convince the judge to add further delays, after she expressed concern last year that Trump’s criminal cases in New York and Washington could “collide” with the documents case in Florida because they were scheduled to start between March and May.But Trump’s legal calendar has shifted since Cannon made those remarks in November.Trump’s first criminal case in New York, over hush-money payments made to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, will start on 25 March and is expected to last six weeks. Meanwhile, the 2020 election interference case in Washington is effectively delayed indefinitely until the US supreme court decides whether Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution.In that sense, Trump’s legal calendar is now free of conflicts from May onwards, allowing Cannon to adopt either scheduling proposal from Trump or prosecutors, or again set a tentative trial start somewhere between the two suggested dates. More