More stories

  • in

    Biden was in a fighting mood for surprise speech – but he didn’t win

    It came out of the blue. The White House announced that Joe Biden would deliver remarks at 7.45pm – giving the press just 23 minutes to prepare. What the sudden speech would be about, no one knew. The element of surprise and uncertainty was reminiscent of the Donald Trump era.As it happened, many White House correspondents were at a meeting near the Watergate building about a mile and a half way. The Guardian was among four who jumped in a car, raced across town and sprinted up sedate Pennsylvania Avenue, greeting the Secret Service in a breathless and disheveled state.Perhaps the press were about to witness history. Was Biden set to announce peace in the Middle East or Ukraine? Was this his Bin Laden moment, a military strike that killed a top terrorist leader? Or after a devastating justice department report said his memory is shot due to old age, was he about to do a Lyndon B Johnson and announce he is not seeking re-election?Reporters and TV and radio crews gathered in the Diplomatic Reception Room, the site of Franklin Roosevelt’s radio addresses known as “fireside chats”. Above the fireplace was a portrait of George Washington and thick hardback books bearing the names of recent past presidents. The posh, old-fashioned room comes with panoramic French wallpaper showing vistas of America.After all the hush and hype, Biden emerged at the lectern and did not resign. Far from it; he was in a fighting mood. Biden was responding to the special counsel’s report, welcoming its conclusion that no charges should be brought against him for mishandling classified information. But the president was also combative, emotional and then – not for the first time – took one question too many and paid the price.Special counsel Robert Hur had described the 81-year-old Democrat’s memory as “hazy”, “fuzzy”, “faulty”, “poor” and having “significant limitations”. Biden commented: “There’s even a reference that I don’t remember” – he paused for a moment and swallowed, as if the words are still hard to say – “when my son died”.Beau Biden died of cancer in 2015. With barely concealed anger, the president continued: “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business. Some of you have commented. I wear since the day he died every single day, the rosary he got from Our Lady of … ”He reached to show the rosary and appeared to be choking up. “Every Memorial Day we hold a service remembering him, attended by friends and family and the people who loved him. I don’t need anyone, I don’t need anyone to remind me when he passed away.”Tall, blond and loud, Peter Doocy of the conservative Fox News network, which is pushing the geriatric case against Biden hard, noted that the special counsel called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. The president parried: “I’m well-meaning and I’m an elderly man and I know what the hell I’m doing. I’ve been president and I put this country back on its feet.”Doocy pressed: “How bad is your memory and can you continue as president?”Biden: “My memory is so bad I let you speak.”Touché.Another reporter weighed in: “Do you think your memory has gotten worse, Mr President?”Biden answered: “My memory is fine. Take a look at what I’ve done since I’ve become president. None of you thought I could pass any of the things I got passed. How did that happen? I guess I just forgot what was going on.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut soon things started to go off the rails a bit. From a raucous cacophony of reporters’ voices, one emerged to ask: “Mr President, for months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words ‘watch me’. Well, many American people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age.”Biden looked cross again. “That is your judgment!” he said, his voice rising as he pointed an accusing finger. “That is your judgment. That is not the judgment of the press” – presumably he meant to say public.Biden went on to insist: “I’m the most qualified person in this country to be president of the United States and finish the job I started.”More questions. More frenetic noise. More grumpy expressions and finger pointing from Biden. “I did not share classified information!” he almost shouted. “Let me answer your question!”Still, he rounded off with a flourish: “I did not break the law. Period,” and started making his way to the exit. The Biden comms team must have been breathing a huge sigh of relief. A fiery riposte to the critics! No major gaffes! Then imagine their dismay (“Keep walking, don’t turn around, oh my god, he’s going back”) as Biden halted, turned and returned to the lectern, unable to resist a question about hostage negotiations in Gaza.It was then that, having protested his memory is all good and his age is not an issue, that Biden put his foot in it again, mistakenly referring to Egypt’s leader Abdel Fatah al-Sisi as “the president of Mexico”. This followed his assertions that in recent days he met François Mitterrand of France and Helmut Kohl of Germany when both were already dead.Doocy and Fox News had their story after all. Minutes later, the network was running the chyron: “Biden confuses the presidents of Egypt and Mexico.” It followed up with: “Biden raises even more questions about cognitive health after disastrous press conference.”And it’s still only February. More

  • in

    Joe Biden criticises special counsel and insists his ‘memory is fine’ in surprise speech – video

    The US president, Joe Biden, defended his memory in a short speech after a report from the justice department questioned his ability to remember key events and facts. The report also exonerated Biden over his handling of classified materials. Biden disputed some press reporting that he had ‘wilfully retained documents’ and said the special counsel report’s descriptions concerning the date of his son’s death were ‘extraneous commentary’ that ‘had no place’ there. Biden’s remarks came after an earlier statement in which the US president welcomed the finding that he should not face criminal charges More

  • in

    ‘Excited for Trump’: Nevada Republican party holds caucuses days after primary

    Nevada’s Republican party is hosting caucuses on Thursday, just two days after the state held a non-binding presidential primary.Donald Trump, the only major candidate running in the caucuses, is assured to be anointed victor by the end of the night. Still, supporters turned up to show their support for the former president, joining snaking lines at high schools, country clubs and even a dental practice to vote.Political analysts and the Nevada Republicans themselves were unsure of what sort of turnout to expect tonight, in a race that is essentially decided for Trump. The only other candidate Tuesday night was Ryan Binkley – a little-known pastor and businessman from Texas – will cap off a perplexing primary week in the key, western battleground state.Due to the manoeuvrings of staunch Nevada GOP allies, Trump is essentially guaranteed the state’s 26 delegates at the Republican national convention. After challenging a state law requiring presidential primaries, the party won the right to hold their own caucuses – not run and financed by the state. Candidates could only participate in one or the other, though voters are allowed to participate in both.While voters in the primary were allowed to cast ballots by mail, or early in person, those participating in the caucuses were required to come in person, at specific locations and bring a photo ID. The state’s GOP has said the caucuses are more secure than the primaries, though as voters sardined into a high school in Henderson, Nevada, attendees complained that overwhelmed volunteers were having difficulties managing the mass of voters outside.At the Green Valley high school caucus site in Henderson, Nevada, spirits were high as voters filed over to the registration tables to have their IDs checked. One organizer delivered a PSA: “If you are one of the people who hung up Trump signs all over, I love it – but you have to take them down.” It was against the school’s policy to allow political signs to be posted around campus.Deby Callahan, 71, and her granddaughter Aubrey Bucher, 20, were attending together. Bucher was also trying to gather signatures for a ballot measure to approve a voter ID requirement for future elections. “I’m excited for president Trump,” Callahan said, who like many other voters do not accept Biden won the 2020 election.Ahead of the caucuses that he is guaranteed to win, Trump urged Nevadans who were voting to sign the voter ID petition – which election experts have said could make it more onerous, especially for older people and people of color, to cast ballots. Republicans across the US have been pushing such measures.“If you are showing up today to vote in the GOP Caucus in Nevada, make sure to sign the Petition for VOTER ID that many people will be circulating at Caucus locations,” Trump posted to his Truth Social. “This is a very ‘BIG DEAL.’ Thank you.”As volunteers methodically checked the IDs of caucus attendees, a queue for the sign in table began to grow, wrapping around the school’s entrance.“Look at the turnout,” said Aydin Delara, 65. “Trump is the only reason everyone is here.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNearly 9,300 Republicans submitted their primary ballots early, by mail or in person, and about 10,400 voted on Tuesday. Confusion about how and whether to vote in the primary, as well as heavy rains, probably affected turnout. Trump, who visited the state last week, encouraged voters to avoid the primary altogether. “Don’t waste your time,” he said at a rally in east Las Vegas. “Waste all of your time on caucus because the primary doesn’t mean anything.”Nevada Republicans have said that their caucuses will be more secure than the primaries, a claim that is roundly disputed by election experts – voter fraud is exceedingly rare. The leaders of the caucus effort include election deniers who have been charged for their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.But the bifurcated process has also caused confusion for voters, many of whom appeared at the polls earlier this week and were surprised to find that Trump wasn’t on the ballot. He still managed to humiliate Nikki Haley, the only major candidate running, who trailed behind a “none of these candidates” option. Trump allies had encouraged voters to show their support for the former president by voicing opposition to Haley.Borrowing a favorite phrase of Trump’s, the former UN ambassador has said the state’s divided election process was “rigged” against her. Haley did not campaign in Nevada, choosing instead to focus on the upcoming elections in South Carolina.Although this election process is legal, the GOP’s manoeuvring has been widely criticised, including by Republicans. Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor, said in October that the duelling contests would be “detrimental to the candidates” and “unacceptable for voters”. Nonetheless, Lombardo said he would be caucusing for Trump. More

  • in

    Special counsel delivers Trump a Biden attack line on a silver platter

    The president is not a crook. But there may be something more unforgivable in the court of public opinion. The president is old.That is what will linger from Joe Biden’s pyrrhic victory at the hands of the justice department on Thursday. True, he will not face criminal charges over his handling of highly classified documents when a private citizen, despite an awkward photo revealing papers stashed in a broken cardboard box in his garage, according to special counsel Robert Hur.But most striking among the reasons that Hur gave for his decision was that 81-year-old Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.The special counsel had delivered an attack line to Donald Trump’s election campaign on a silver platter. Only in America could Trump gain a political lift from 91 criminal charges even as his opponent suffers a political setback from not being charged at all.And Trump, who is 77, is at least as likely to speak gobbledygook as Biden, recently confusing his Republican opponent Nikki Haley with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Yet as in so many other areas, he is somehow given a free ride, in part because he is a white hot ball of anger who just seems younger, in part because his age seems trivial compared to his alleged crimes and misdemeanours, including a far more serious classified documents case.But Hur still wrote that Biden’s memory was “significantly limited” when he was interviewed by members of his prosecution team. It “appeared hazy” regarding the debate about US forces in Afghanistan and could not recall the years when he was vice-president. Most startlingly, Biden “did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died”.It is all fodder for Republicans, who have been working around the clock to pin Biden to the wall as a babbling Methuselah who doesn’t know what day of the week it is. Alex Pfeiffer, communications director for Make America Great Again Inc, a pro-Trump Super Pac, said: “If you’re too senile to stand trial, then you’re too senile to be president. Joe Biden is unfit to lead this nation.”Nikki Haley, a Republican candidate for president, posted on social media: “Joe Biden can’t remember major events in his life, like when he was vice-president or when his son died. That is sad, but it will be even sadder if we have a person in the White House who is not mentally up to the most important job in the world.”Biden’s lawyers were quick to dismiss the report as a hatchet job by a partisan hack swerving outside his lane. They accused of Hur, a Republican who served in senior roles at the justice department during the Trump administration, of overreach and “investigative excess”.Unfortunately that defence had already been undercut by Biden himself. Speaking in Nevada on Sunday, he apparently confused François Mitterrand, the former French president who died in 1996, with France’s current president, Emmanuel Macron, while recalling European worries over US democracy and the January 6 insurrection.Then, in New York on Wednesday, Biden referred to former German chancellor Helmut Kohl – who died in 2017 – as talking to him about the same issue when he apparently meant Angela Merkel.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA day later the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, tried to neutralise the gaffes by pointing to recent examples of other public figures – including the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and Fox News host Sean Hannity – mixing up names. She told reporters: “And, look – you know, look, as it relates to the names and – and what he was trying to – you know, what he was trying to – to say, look, many people – elected officials, many people – you know, they tend – they can – they can mis- – misspeak sometimes. Right?”Biden, meanwhile, is not helping his own case. He turned down the chance to do a TV interview before Sunday’s American football Super Bowl, a platform that reaches millions of viewers who might not be following politics closely. He has sat for a quarter as many interviews as Trump at this point in his presidency, and one-fifth as many as Obama, according to the White House Transition Project’s Martha Kumar.Such elusiveness gives the impression of a man whose “handlers” believe that he must be coddled and shielded for his own health and gaffe avoidance.There are eerie echoes of 2016 when then FBI director James Comey declined to recommend charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal email system when she was secretary of state but rebuked her as “extremely careless”. Comey reopened his investigation 11 days before the election; Clinton has blamed him for her shocking loss to Trump.What those Comey interventions did was feed a pre-existing narrative that Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton, came with a whiff of corruption, an elitist assumption that the rules governing everyone else did not apply to her. Now special counsel Hur has fed a pre-existing narrative that Biden is too old for the job. Should that solidify in the public mind as his defining characteristic, it will be a disaster for the president’s re-election – and the battle to preserve democracy. More

  • in

    Biden described as ‘elder man with poor memory’ in damning classified document report – live

    Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur writes.“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”In addition to the statement from Donald Trump himself, Make America Great Again Inc. – a super PAC supporting the former president’s campaign for election in 2024, has released its own comment on Hur’s report.“If you’re too senile to stand trial, then you’re too senile to be president,” said Alex Pfeiffer, communications director for Make America Great Again Inc. “Joe Biden is unfit to lead this nation.”Former president Donald Trump has released a statement via his campaign regarding the findings in the report from Robert Hur, saying “THIS HAS NOW PROVEN TO BE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!” [sic].Trump referenced his own classified documents case, in which he is charged of willful retention of national defense information, false statements and representations, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document, concealing a document in a federal investigation and a scheme to conceal. That case is expected to go to trial in May 2024.
    The Biden Documents Case is 100 times different and more severe than mine. I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal – He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them. I was covered by the Presidential Records Act, Secret Service was always around, and GSA delivered the documents. Deranged Jack Smith should drop this Case immediately. ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
    Republican chairman James Comer of the House committee on oversight and accountability has issued the following statement on the report from special counsel Robert Hur:
    Americans expect equal justice under the law and are dismayed the Justice Department continues to allow Joe Biden to live above it. Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents for years in unsecure locations and intentionally disclosed them yet faces no consequences for his actions. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and we have uncovered key facts that unravel the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s narrative of events. Additionally, important questions remain about the extent of Joe Biden retaining sensitive materials related to specific countries involving his family’s influence peddling schemes that brought in millions for the Bidens. While the Justice Department has closed its investigation, the Oversight Committee’s investigation continues. We will continue to provide the transparency and accountability owed to the American people.
    In addition to the statement, Comer said the White House was not cooperating with interviews the committee has requested with current and former White House staff who were involved with organizing, moving and removing boxes that contained classified materials.He stated that the report confirmed Biden retained documents related to China and Ukraine, “two countries the Bidens have solicited and received millions of dollars from”.You can read special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, as well as the rebuttal from the president’s attorneys, below:Attorneys for Joe Biden objected to special counsel Robert Hur repeatedly mentioning the president’s memory problems in his report.Referring to his conversation with Mark Zwonitzer, ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir Promise Me, Dad, Hur writes: “Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”He later goes on to describe Biden as showing “diminished faculties and faulty memory” in his conversations with Zwonitzer.In a letter written to Hur dated earlier this week and included in the report, the president’s special counsel Richard Sauber and personal attorney Bob Bauer took issue with the special counsel’s language:
    We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are ‘warranted’ and that ‘the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt.’
    They continue:
    Not only do you treat the President differently from other witnesses when discussing his limited recall of certain years-ago events, but you also do so on occasions in prejudicial and inflammatory terms. You refer to President Biden’s memory on at least nine occasions – a number that is itself gratuitous.
    Sauber and Bauer requested Hur “revisit your descriptions of President Biden’s memory”. He apparently did not do so.Special counsel Robert Hur included in his report photos of where Joe Biden’s classified documents were stored:In a just-released statement, Joe Biden said he “threw up no roadblocks” to Robert Hur’s investigation of his possession of classified documents, and notes he spoke to the special counsel even in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel.The president’s comments came after Hur’s report noted that it would be difficult to convince jurors the “elderly” Biden intentionally kept government secrets, and related his inability to remember important dates during interviews with the special counsel.Here’s what Biden had to say, in full:
    The Special Counsel released today its findings about its look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see they reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach – that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970s when I was a young Senator. I cooperated completely, threw up no roadblocks, and sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give the Special Counsel what they needed that I went forward with five hours of in-person interviews over two days on October 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis. I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed.Over my career in public service, I have always worked to protect America’s security. I take these issues seriously and no one has ever questioned that.
    Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that in an interview last year, Joe Biden struggled to recall key chapters in his personal and professional life:
    In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
    Biden’s lack of ability to remember things would make it hard to prosecute him, Hur said:
    We also expect many jurors to be struck by the place where the Afghanistan documents were ultimately found in Mr. Biden’s Delaware home: in a badly damaged box in the garage, near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket, a broken lamp wrapped with duct tape, potting soil, and synthetic firewood.
    A reasonable juror could conclude that this is not where a person intentionally stores what he supposedly considers to be important classified documents, critical to his legacy. Rather, it looks more like a place a person stores classified documents he has forgotten about or is unaware of. We have considered – and investigated – the possibility that the box was intentionally placed in the garage to make it appear to be there by mistake, but the evidence does not support that conclusion.
    Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur writes.“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”In his report, special counsel Robert Hur outlines how Joe Biden “willfully” disclosed classified documents, but says the available evidence does not establish the president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” Hur wrote in the report’s executive summary. “These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home.”Justice department policy prohibits bringing charges against a president while they are in office, but Hur notes that, even if that were not the case, he would not recommend charging Biden.The special counsel then goes in to why he does not think jurors would convict Biden. The reasons include evidence suggests Biden simply forgot he had classified material, or that jurors believed that when he found it, he would not have realized he was breaking the law, because the former vice-president was so used to seeing such documents.The White House was provided a copy of special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, and reviewed it to determine if it revealed privileged information.Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel, said no changes were made: “We notified the justice department at approximately 9.00 this morning that our privilege review has concluded. In keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency throughout this investigation, the president declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report.”There will be no criminal charges filed in the classified documents investigation involving Joe Biden, Reuters is reporting, citing MSNBC, which is attributing that to an unnamed law enforcement official.More details soon.Meanwhile, Trump and Biden’s classified documents cases (in which the former president has been criminally charged and the current president has not) have similarities, there are also some notable differences.The White House said Biden’s attorneys found a small number of classified documents and turned them over after discovery.Trump resisted handing over boxes of classified material until a 2022 FBI search turned up about 100 classified documents, leading to obstruction of justice charges against Trump and two employees at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.The White House said Biden and his team have cooperated with special counsel Robert Hur and his investigators. Biden cannot face federal criminal charges as a sitting president under a longstanding justice department policy.The findings could pose political headaches for Biden who has sought to draw a contrast with Trump on issues of personal ethics and national security.Hur’s report, and his decision not to bring criminal charges, are likely to fuel accusations of a double standard from Trump and his Republican allies.[But] Trump was charged after prosecutors said he refused for months to turn over boxes containing presidential records he had taken to Mar-a-Lago and took steps to conceal the documents after the US government demanded their return. Trump has pleaded not guilty and a trial is scheduled for May but is likely to be delayed.The special counsel in the Biden classified documents investigation focused on documents related to Biden’s service as vice-president in the Obama administration from 2009-2017 and from his prior tenure in the US Senate, Reuters reports.Members of Joe Biden’s legal team found classified papers at the office of his Washington thinktank and the US president’s personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware.Biden’s lead rival in the November election, former president Donald Trump, faces a 40-count federal indictment for retaining highly sensitive national security documents at his Florida resort after leaving office in 2021 and obstructing US government efforts to retrieve them.The US Congress has been handed the special counsel report on Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents dating to his years as vice-president to Barack Obama, Reuters is reporting, citing an unnamed source familiar with the matter.The US president was interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur last October and the case relates to actions taken before Biden took the White House.Earlier last year US attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Hur to investigate Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as vice-president.At the time, lawyers for Biden reported having found classified documents at his home and former thinktank.One day after he strengthened regulations on soot pollution, EPA Administrator Michael Regan spoke about pollution controls’ impact on children at an environmental advocacy event in Washington DC.“This is deeply personal for me,” he said. “Every morning when I leave the house I’m kissing my ten year old son on the forehead and hoping to be the best dad and the best administrator that I can.”Regan described Thursday’s new soot rule as a “gamechanger,” especially for young people, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to the health effects of pollution – and who face various other hardships.“This is one thing we’re taking off their plates,” he said.Regan spoke at a meeting held by national environmental advocacy group Moms Clean Air Force on Thursday at the National Press Club.Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, spoke earlier in the day about the Biden administration’s attempts to “infuse principles of justice and equity into everything.”She touted one Biden administration program which allots 40% of certain environmental federal investments to communities most affected by the climate crisis and pollution.Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton also spoke about environmental pollution at the event at the National Press Club.“We know that in our warming climate, the dangers are particularly acute for our youngest,” she said.Clinton spoke the children-focused efforts she is helming at the Clinton Foundation, of which she is vice-chair. One project: partnering with advocates working to keep schools open year-round, since they serve as not only educational facilities but also as cooling centers in many communities.The Thursday event convened youth advocates, doctors, environmentalists, and public health advocates who called on Americans to work together to push for better regulations on air pollution.“Your voice does matter,” said Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, who directs the Children’s Environmental Health Network. “A lot can really happen when mothers, parents, teachers, come together”Moms Clean Air Force, an national environmental advocacy group, held a summit at the National Press Club on Thursday, featuring guests including Chelsea Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan.Founded in 2011, the organization works to strengthen protections from planet-heating and toxic pollution. It is made up of 1.5 million members, many of whom are mothers.The event comes amid increasing public concern about the climate crisis and pollution, and before a presidential election that will prove crucial for environmental policy in the US.The Biden administration is currently rushing to finalize key environmental protections, including tightened standards on emissions from power plants and vehicles’ tailpipes.“We have enormous challenges in front of us,” said Dominique Browning, co-founder and director of Moms Clean Air Force.“We have never felt greater urgency to get things done.”Paul Billings, who is national senior vice president of public policy at the American Lung Association and was a panelist at Thursday’s event, said that in recent decades, political polarization has proved a major challenge in passing environmental protections. It should not be, he said, because “everyone has lungs.”Panelists also discussed the ways children are disproportionately harmed by pollution and global warming, because their smaller, developing bodies are more vulnerable to health risks.Another major challenge: the rise of mental health issues tied to concern about the climate crisis.“We’re seeing more and more children who are presenting with climate anxiety,” Dr Lisa Patel, executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health and pediatric hospitalist, said.After about two hours of arguments, the supreme court’s nine justices seemed broadly skeptical of the effort to keep Donald Trump from the presidential ballot over his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. It is unclear when they will issue a ruling. Across the street at the Capitol, the Senate advanced a measure providing assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, following a botched attempt to also include hardline immigration policy changes Republicans demanded, then decided they did not like. The GOP wants to make amendments to the legislation, and it’s unclear what its reception will be in the House, but progress on this long-running negotiation appears to finally be happening.Here’s a recap of the day’s events thus far:
    Trump listened in to the supreme courts arguments, which, to his ears, sounded “beautiful”.
    Jason Murray, an attorney for the people challenging Trump’s eligibility, warned the supreme court that the question could “could come back with a vengeance” if he is allowed to run.
    Law professor Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame predicted the high court would rule quickly.
    The Senate’s vote to advance a bill that will provide assistance to three countries Washington considers national security priorities is a sign of progress in what has been a tortuous and chaotic process.Democrats have wanted for months to approve aid to the three countries, but the GOP, which controls the House and can block passage of legislation in the Senate using the filibuster, demanded they also agree to hardline immigration policy changes. But when those changes were announced earlier this week after months of bipartisan negotiation, Republicans decided they did not like them either, and Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said a bill pairing the border security changes with foreign aid money would not get a vote in his chamber.Yesterday, the Senate voted down that version of the legislation after Republicans and some Democrats objected. The Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer immediately moved to put up for a vote the legislation that funds only Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, without addressing immigration policy at all. The Senate just a few minutes ago voted to advance that legislation.But the story is far from over. It’s unclear if the House will approve the legislation, and Schumer said Senate Republicans want to make amendments before final passage:
    We hope to reach an agreement with our Republican colleagues on amendments. Democrats have always been clear that we support having a fair and reasonable amendment process. During my time as majority leader, I have presided over more amendment votes than the Senate held in all four years of the previous administration. For the information of senators, we are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done. More

  • in

    Consequences weigh heavily for justices at Trump 14th amendment hearing

    In the end, the supreme court justices displayed little interest in the finer details of constitutional law, which normally pays their salaries and over which the country has been obsessing now for days.Who is an “officer of the United States”? Leave that to one side. Should the 14th amendment’s disqualification of insurrectionists in federal posts apply only to office holders or can it also be deployed against electoral candidates? Let’s come back to that.Even the big question – did Donald Trump engage in insurrection in luring his supporters to the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 – barely got a look in at Thursday’s historic oral arguments. Only one of the nine justices, the liberal-leaning Ketanji Brown Jackson, asked a single question of Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, inviting him to state his position on such a vexed and burning issue.No, Trump did not, Mitchell predictably replied, in part because an insurrection had to be “an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government”. Jackson shot back with the forensic wit that in her 18 months on the mahogany bench has become her trademark.“And so a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection,” she said. It was a rare moment of release in more than two hours of dense legal discussion.What the justices were, almost to an individual, concerned to talk about was what the consequences of their judgment would be, both for American democracy and for their own standing. Should they side with the Colorado supreme court, and remove Trump from the ballot, then what?Elena Kagan, another of the three liberal-leaning justices, wanted to know whether a victory for Colorado would effectively impose that state’s decision to cast Trump into the wilderness on the voters of all other states. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?” she pondered.Samuel Alito, one of the hard rightwingers on the court, wondered whether the logic of Colorado’s argument – that a federal office holder who committed insurrection should immediately and automatically be disqualified – would allow military officers to cease obeying a president’s orders from the Oval Office.John Roberts, the chief justice, looked inward, asking himself what the consequences of stripping Trump from the Colorado ballot would be for his own court. He painted a picture of a dystopian world in which a ruling that sided with Colorado would unleash a flood of partisan challenges from other states under the insurrection clause, each of them with different standards of proof and evidentiary rules.“In very quick order, a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, ‘You’re off the ballot’, and others, for the Republican candidate, ‘You’re off the ballot’, and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”Not least for Roberts himself. “We will be deciding whether there was an insurrection when one president did something, as opposed to when somebody else did something else. So what do we do?”For Roberts, this was more than merely a question about possible future workload. It was far more existential than that: it was a heartfelt cry that the court should avoid being dragged into the contentious thick of presidential elections, where only grief could lie.As time ticked on, and the arguments continued, it became clear that the Roberts’ view – pragmatic, cautious, allergic to future controversy – was widely shared by almost all the justices. Such uniformity of opinion raises the prospect of a rapid decision in coming days, with an 8-to-1 vote or even 9-to-0 being eminently possible (the only point of uncertainty being the third liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, who contributed little).Such an outcome would make Roberts the second biggest winner of the day. He will hope that a unanimous or near-unanimous ruling on such an explosive issue will help redeem the court amid growing public skepticism over its many corruption scandals and blatantly partisan rightwing jurisprudence.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe chief justice is only too well aware of the low esteem in which his court is already held by the American people, and he is desperate to avoid further slippage. A recent NBC News poll found that only 28% had a positive view of the justices, the lowest rating in the poll’s history.The biggest winner, of course, is Trump. Barring a major surprise, the court is all but certain to overturn the Colorado ruling and keep the former president back on the ballot. After the pounding he has taken from the courts in recent days, it will mark a rare – and no doubt heavily-exploited – victory.There is one other aspect to the winners and losers from Thursday’s deliberations, and it’s the most important one of all. How does democracy come out of all this?Brett Kavanaugh, one of three rightwing justices appointed by Trump, was clear that keeping the former president on the ballot was a win from democracy. “What about the idea that we should think about democracy, and the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice? Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters,” he told the lawyer representing the Colorado plaintiffs, Jason Murray.It was one of several critical comments directed at Murray from the bench. But it invoked a parting warning from the lawyer.Should Trump win in November, the question of an insurrectionist returning to the White House will not have gone away. In words that may yet haunt the court, he said: “I think it could come back with a vengeance.” More

  • in

    US Senate advances wartime aid package for Ukraine and Israel

    The Senate on Thursday advanced a wartime aid package for Ukraine and Israel, reviving an effort that had stalled amid Republican opposition to a border security bill they demanded and later abandoned.A day after blocking a measure that would have paired harsh new border restrictions with security assistance for Ukraine, Israel and other US allies, the Senate voted 67 to 32 to begin consideration of the $95bn emergency aid bill. Several Republicans who voted to block the broader border package agreed to open debate on the foreign policy-only version of the measure after securing the opportunity to propose changes, including the immigration enforcement measures that were stripped out.With Kyiv begging Washington for help battling Russian forces on the frontline, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, hailed the preliminary vote as a “good first step”. But its prospects remained unclear as Republicans threatened to force a lengthy amendment process.“Failure to pass this bill would only embolden autocrats like [Russia’s Vladimir] Putin and [China’s] Xi [Jinping], who want nothing more than America’s decline,” Schumer said following the vote. He added: “We are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done.”If the Senate passes the bill it would face further uncertainty in the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority and have been increasingly opposed to sending aid to Ukraine.The new foreign aid package under consideration would include billions of dollars in military assistance for Ukraine and security assistance for Israel with humanitarian assistance for civilians in Ukraine, Gaza and the West Bank. However, it would not include the US border security measures outlined in the bipartisan measure, although some Republican senators expressed interest in adding border provisions through an amendment process.Among them was Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, who voted against advancing the funding measure on Thursday “because I believe we have not done all we can to secure our southern border”.“I enthusiastically support Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel, but as I have been saying for months now, we must protect America first,” the Trump ally said in a statement.The Senate had held an initial vote on the foreign aid package on Wednesday, in which 58 members supported advancing it. That initial motion required only a simple majority for passage, so the bill was able to advance, but 60 votes were needed for advancement on Thursday.There was some apparent uncertainty over how much support the bill had on Wednesday, forcing senators to keep the initial vote on the proposal open for four hours as they debated the best path forward. That evening, Schumer took to the floor to announce that members would reconvene on Thursday to vote on the legislation.“We will recess until tomorrow and give our Republican colleagues the night to figure themselves out,” Schumer said. “We’ll be coming back tomorrow at noon, and hopefully that will give the Republicans the time they need. We will have this vote tomorrow.”Schumer’s comments came hours after the Senate voted 49 to 50 against advancing the bipartisan border bill. Sixty votes were required to start debate on the bill, but 44 Senate Republicans and six of their Democratic colleagues blocked the legislation from moving forward. Just four Senate Republicans – including James Lankford, a Republican of Oklahoma, who helped broker the border deal – supported advancing the bill.Schumer initially supported the bill’s advancement, but he then changed his vote, a procedural maneuver that would allow him to take up the legislation again later. In a floor speech delivered on Wednesday before the vote, Schumer criticized Republicans for opposing the bipartisan bill and accused them of doing Donald Trump’s political bidding. The former president had called on Republicans to oppose the border deal out of concern for how it might affect the presidential race and his campaign’s focus on the issue of immigration.“Donald Trump doesn’t like that the Senate finally reached a bipartisan border deal. So he has demanded Republicans kill it,” Schumer said. “He thinks it’s far better to keep the border in chaos so he can exploit it for personal political gains. And Senate Republicans – vertebrae nowhere to be found – are ready to blunder away our best chance of fixing the border in order to elevate what they see as the interests of Donald Trump above the interests of the country.” More

  • in

    Removing Donald Trump from ballot could have ‘daunting consequence’, says chief justice – video

    The chief justice of the US supreme court, John Roberts, argued that removing Donald Trump from states’ primary ballots for the presidential election could mean some states would remove the Democratic candidate, some states would remove the Republican candidate, leaving the presidential election to just a few states.

    A majority of justices, including some from the court’s liberal wing, voiced concern about the chaos that would ensue if they allowed states to decide whether to disqualify candidates when they debated Colorado’s decision to rule Trump ineligible to run for office for inciting insurrection More