Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in US Politics

    Fake Biden robocalls in New Hampshire linked to Texas companies, officials say

    US authorities issued cease-and-desist orders on Tuesday against two Texas companies they believe were connected to robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic Joe Biden’s voice and discourage people from voting in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary last month.During a news conference to discuss the investigation, officials described the calls as the clearest and possibly first known attempt to use AI to interfere with an election in the US.The New Hampshire attorney general, John Formella, said investigators have identified the source of the calls as Life Corporation and said they were transmitted by a company called Lingo Telecom.New Hampshire issued cease-and-desist orders and subpoenas to both companies, while the Federal Communications Commission issued a cease-and-desist letter to the telecommunications company, Formella said. In a statement, the FCC said it was trying to stop “behavior that violates voter suppression laws.”“That’s been something we’ve been concerned about in the law enforcement community for a while, and it’s certainly something that state attorneys general have talked about, but we had not seen as concrete of an example as this, days before a primary,” he said.A message left for Life Corporation’s owner, Walter Monk, at his company Wholesale Communication was not immediately returned. Alex Valencia, who was named in an FCC letter as the chief compliance officer at Lingo Telecom, did not immediately return an emailed request for comment.The recorded message was sent to between 5,000 and 25,000 voters two days before the 23 January primary. It used a voice similar to Biden’s, employed his often-used phrase, “What a bunch of malarkey” and falsely suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting a ballot in November’s general election.Biden won the Democratic primary as a write-in candidate after he kept his name off the ballot in deference to South Carolina’s new lead-off position for the Democratic primaries.The calls falsely showed up to recipients as coming from the personal cellphone number of Kathy Sullivan, a former state Democratic party chair who helps run Granite for America, a super Pac that supported the Biden write-in campaign. Formella said at least 10 people who received the calls then called Sullivan.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe apparent attempt at voter suppression using rapidly advancing generative AI technology is one example of what experts warn will make 2024 a year of unprecedented election disinformation around the world. Formella said the investigation is just beginning, but he wanted to send a strong message to deter others who might be tempted to interfere in this year’s elections.“Our message is clear: law enforcement across the country is unified on a bipartisan basis and ready to work together to combat any attempt to undermine our elections,” he said. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘She could absolutely change my mind’: readers on Taylor Swift’s political influence

    Although Taylor Swift, 34, avoided discussing Democrats or Republicans in the earlier stages of her career, she has become more politically vocal over time. In 2018, she spoke out against Marsha Blackburn and supported Democratic candidates in Tennessee. During the 2020 election cycle, she endorsed Joe Biden and vowed to the then president Donald Trump on Twitter that “we will vote you out”.In recent weeks, a string of rightwing figures have begun to spread conspiracy theories claiming Swift is a “Pentagon asset” who will influence the next presidential election by endorsing Joe Biden.Here, six US voters from across the country share what they make of Swift taking a stance on US political issues, what issues they would feel comfortable having Swift talk about, and whether the superstar could influence their vote.‘Could Taylor Swift influence my vote? Yes, absolutely’“I love that Taylor is getting political! Every American has the right to their own political ideas, and to express them.“Taylor has a voice that is all caps, a megaphone. I’d like her to take a stance on women’s issues, youth issues, social issues, LGBTQ+ issues, the NFL draft, drug use, or anything else on her mind. Basically, any issue other than those affecting her personal business interests.“I think she could, potentially, absolutely change my mind politically, because she is a strong woman who is a role model to my 24-year-old daughter and who is unafraid to speak her mind to old, misogynistic, males who can’t find the ability to respect a woman, any woman. It is time we prepare the next generation of women for leadership. The far right are scared to death of Taylor, who has an opportunity to move the needle, to politically mobilise particularly young women and men, and I think she should.” Michael Dee, 67, an investment banker from Dallas, Texas‘Her words are a drop in the ocean compared to the Maga machine’“I am very supportive of Taylor taking political stances. Country stars have supported Republicans for years and it didn’t seem to bother anyone; now a smart successful woman has threatened the football Maga crowd. She’s a smart, aware woman and any speaking she does is a drop in the ocean compared to the Maga machine that is everywhere. If she can prevent another attack on our fragile democracy she should please speak up. She’d be a fool not to.“I’d like her to clear up issues [about which] Trump has gaslit people. He made a mess of things. Let her highlight his failures, his encouragement of the January 6 attack on the Capitol and his lies.“I live in a Republican state, with cowboys and Trump people and pickup trucks driving around with flags. I’m gonna vote for whoever will be the Dem candidate, but I’m hoping Taylor can get a few more people here to vote Dems, educate them politically, people who don’t read the papers.” Roberta, retired, from South Dakota‘If Taylor Swift endorsed a presidential candidate, I’d be angry’“It is concerning that Americans turn to icons like Taylor Swift, a musician, to advise them on how to vote. It further evidences that Americans are not really thinking for themselves but are under the sway of cultural and commercial influences.“Swift is part of a global elite, whether she acknowledges it or not and no matter how much charity she does. She is now a billionaire, and even if she had $500m, $50m or $5m, she would still be living in a completely different world from most of her fans and most people in the United States.“When Taylor Swift experiences an injustice, hundreds of millions of people hear about it in her songs or on the international news, creating the illusion that this injustice is significant to the lives of everyone else. I hate this new trend of celebrities becoming politicians and further capitalizing on their special privileges.“If Taylor Swift endorsed a presidential candidate, I would be angry. Americans do not need more noise in their already noisy election. We do not want musicians having that much power that they could sway a political election to one side or another. Leigh, 34, PhD student from San Francisco, California‘Taylor Swift’s endorsement can influence me more than any man in DC’“She should absolutely take a stance, as much as any American voter! Her stance and/or endorsement is one that I care about as much as my granddaughter does.“I would like to hear her speak out in support of human rights for all, especially women. And to support the asylum-seeking refugees risking their lives to contribute their hard work to the US. That’s what actually makes America great.“For me, Taylor Swift’s endorsement holds more influence than any man in DC or in the media. Why wouldn’t her opinion matter to me?” Louise*, 72, an unpaid family caregiver from Florida‘She should guide her followers if she cares about them’“People who have influence have a duty to speak the truth to their flock. A good leader stands by principles they believe in and advocates for the greater good. If Taylor Swift truly cares about her followers then she will guide them to make a good decision at this crucial moment in time. No one on the right would critique a pastor advancing his world view into sermons, so why can’t a singer?“I think Taylor Swift can speak well on inclusiveness, anti-racism, women’s rights, and democracy – fundamental values that shouldn’t be controversial in modern America, but have been made vulnerable by rightwing fearmongering. She should avoid [talking about] the climate until she leads by example and doesn’t fly from mansion to mansion on a private jet.“My vote would absolutely not be influenced by her: if she endorsed Trump I would just assume she’s horrible. If she endorsed Biden I would be glad that she isn’t a white supremacist.” Jacob Phelps, 38, a registered nurse from Pennsylvania‘She should encourage her fans to make up their own minds’“I tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum but I’m not dogmatic about it. Everyone should be engaged in our democracy. Because Taylor has built a successful career in music she can use her popularity to advocate for the things she cares about. More power to her.“I hope she encourages everyone to become more active in our country’s future. If she could convince people to value the diversity of our society and help to tone down the hate-filled rhetoric from both sides that would be a gigantic achievement.“I think she would be far more effective if she didn’t endorse a candidate but instead told her fans to study the issues and make up their own minds.” Geoff Lusk, 58, pilates instructor from Denver, Colorado*Name has been changed More

  • 100 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘In a word, horrific’: Trump’s extreme anti-environment blueprint

    The United States’s first major climate legislation dismantled, a crackdown on government scientists, a frenzy of oil and gas drilling, the Paris climate deal not only dead but buried.A blueprint is emerging for a second Donald Trump term that is even more extreme for the environment than his first, according to interviews with multiple Trump allies and advisers.In contrast to a sometimes chaotic first White House term, they outlined a far more methodical second presidency: driving forward fossil fuel production, sidelining mainstream climate scientists and overturning rules that curb planet-heating emissions.“Trump will undo everything [Joe] Biden has done, he will move more quickly and go further than he did before,” said Myron Ebell, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team for Trump’s first term. “He will act much more expeditiously to impose his agenda.”The prized target for Trump’s Republican allies, should the former president defeat Joe Biden in November’s election, will be the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark $370bn bill laden with support for clean energy projects and electric vehicles. Ebell said the legislation, signed by Biden in 2022 with no Republican votes, was “the biggest defeat we’ve suffered”.Carla Sands, a key environment adviser to the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute who has criticized Biden’s “apocalyptic green fantasies”, said: “Our nation needs a level regulatory playing field for all forms of energy to compete. Achieving this level playing field will require the repeal of the energy and environment provisions within the Inflation Reduction Act.”View image in fullscreenThe GOP-controlled House of Representatives has already pushed bills to gut the act. But fully repealing the IRA, which has disproportionally brought popular funding and jobs in solar, wind and battery manufacturing to Republican districts, may be politically difficult for Trump even if his party gains full control of Congress.However, Trump could still slow down the progress of the clean energy transition as president by redrawing the rules for the IRA’s generous tax credits.He would, his allies say, also scrap government considerations of the damage caused by carbon emissions; compel a diminished EPA to squash pollution rules for cars, trucks and power plants; and symbolically nullify the Paris climate agreement by not only withdrawing the US again but sending it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, knowing it would fail.“The Paris climate accord does nothing to actually improve the environment here in the United States or globally,” said Mandy Gunasekara, Trump’s former EPA chief of staff. She argued that the agreement puts too little pressure on China, India and other developing countries to reduce their emissions.In recent rallies, Trump, the likely Republican nominee, has called renewable energy “a scam business” and vowed to “drill, baby, drill”. On his first day in office, Trump has said he would repeal “crooked Joe Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandate” and approve a glut of new gas export terminals currently paused by Biden.View image in fullscreenAreas currently off-limits for drilling, such the Arctic, will also probably be opened up to industry by Trump. “I will end his war on American energy,” Trump has said of the incumbent president, even though in reality the US hit record levels of oil and gas production last year.“I expect the Republicans will put together their own very aggressive reconciliation bill to claw back the subsidies in the IRA,” said Tom Pyle, president of the free market American Energy Alliance and previous head of the US Department of Energy’s transition team under Trump.“The president will benefit from having the experience of being in office before, he’ll get a faster head start on his agenda. He won’t be encumbered by the need to be re-elected, so there will be a short window of time but he may be more aggressive as a result.”‘There is no logic to it’Critics of Trump, who are already fretting over his potential return to the White House, warn this agenda will stymie clean energy investment, place Americans’ health at the mercy of polluters, badly damage the effort to address the climate crisis and alienate America’s allies.“A return of Trump would be, in a word, horrific,” said Andrew Rosenberg, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official, now fellow at the University of New Hampshire.“It would also be incredibly stupid. It would roll back progress made over decades to protect public health and safety, there is no logic to it other than to destroy everything. People who support him may not realize it’s their lives at stake, too.”View image in fullscreenA second Trump term would be more ideologically extreme than the first, with fewer restraints, Rosenberg claimed. “There were people part of a reasonable mainstream in his first term who buffered against his craziest instincts – they won’t be there any more,” he said.Should Trump manage to repeal the IRA and water down or scrap EPA pollution rules, there would be severe consequences for a world that is struggling to contain an escalating climate crisis, experts say.The US, the world’s second biggest carbon polluter, would still see its emissions drop under Trump due to previous policies and a market-led shift away from coal to gas as an energy source, but at only half the rate of a second Biden term, according to an analysis by Energy Innovation shared with the Guardian.This would deal a mortal blow to the global effort to restrain dangerous global heating, with scientists warning that the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half this decade, and eliminate them entirely by 2050, to avoid breaching agreed temperature limits and plunge billions of people into worsening heatwaves, floods and droughts.“I don’t think Donald Trump would actually be able to replace the IRA, but you couldn’t rule it out,” said Anand Gopal, executive director at Energy Innovation.“If he did, the global effect would be potentially disastrous. It would encourage everyone else to go backwards or slow down their climate pledges and put the world way off track to where it needs to be. It could prove the difference between staying under 1.5C warming or not.”Much will hinge upon any new Trump administration’s ability to better navigate arcane regulatory procedures and the courts. His previous term saw an enormous number of legal defeats for his hurried attempts at environmental rollbacks, as well as the departure of scandal-plagued cabinet members overseeing this effort.“You can’t just snap your fingers,” said Jeff Navin, a former chief of staff at the US Department of Energy. “You need to spend a lot of time redoing regulations. Is that something Trump really wants to do rather than just pursue other grievances? I don’t think so.”View image in fullscreenBut some conservatives believe Trump will prove more successful second time around, pointing to an amenably conservative supreme court and more detailed planning ahead of the election, such as the Project 2025 document put out by the rightwing Heritage Foundation, which details severe cuts to the EPA and Department of the Interior, as well as a greater politicization of the civil service to push through Trumpian goals.“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025, told E&E News last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power day one and deconstruct the administrative state.”Jeff Holmstead, who ran the EPA’s air office during George W Bush’s administration, said Trump’s administration would be “much more prepared” for a second term.“They know what they need to do to undo rules in a in a legally defensible way,” he said. A new Trump administration would take a more “surgical approach” to deregulation, he said, taking more of its cues from industry.Under Biden, Gunasekara said, there has been an “unnecessary tension” between the oil sector and regulators.“You have to work with the industry players,” she said. “Agencies should not be about suppressing or boosting particular technologies.”Early on, Trump officials will probably work with Congress to kill certain rules through a parliamentary procedure called the Congressional Review Act. The Clinton-era statute empowers Congress and the president to work together to overturn major federal regulations within 60 legislative days of finalization, by passing a joint resolution of disapproval signed by the president.“Generally in the past, anything that is finalized after mid- to late May is likely to be within that window,” said Holmstead. “So speed is of the essence for the Biden administration.”A fresh Trump term could engulf federal climate scientists, too, who were ignored but largely allowed to issue their work during Trump’s last term. A new Trump White House could intervene more to alter climate reports, or even stage a previously mooted public debate on the merits of climate science.View image in fullscreen“I expect that idea will be revived and I think we would get a much wider view of climate science that wouldn’t be controlled by a small cabal,” said Ebell. “That will start very quickly.”Trump’s plans come as Biden has struggled to inspire younger, climate-conscious voters who have been angered by his ongoing leasing of public lands and waters to the fossil fuel industry, such as the controversial Willow oil project in Alaska.Biden has overseen a boom in liquified natural gas exports that he has belatedly attempted to restrain and his administration has floundered in its attempts to sell the IRA to the American public, with most voters unaware of the climate legislation or its significance in driving down emissions.Still, the president’s position on climate change is incomparable to Trump’s, according to Rosenberg. “The contrast is incredibly stark between Biden and Trump,” he said. “Do I think Biden is the best of the best? Of course not. But compared to Trump? That’s just scary.“Anyone who cares about public health, the environment, science, international relations, you could go on, should be scared about another Trump presidency.” More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Biden would veto standalone Israel aid bill backed by GOP, says White House

    Joe Biden’s administration said on Monday he would veto a standalone bill backed by House of Representatives Republicans that would provide aid to Israel, as it backs a broader bill providing assistance to Ukraine and Israel and providing new funds for border security.“The Administration strongly encourages both chambers of the Congress to reject this political ploy and instead quickly send the bipartisan Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act to the President’s desk,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.Officials from the Democratic president’s administration have been working for months with Senate Democrats and Republicans on a $118bn legislation package revealed on Sunday combining billions of dollars in emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel and partners in the Indo-Pacific region, with an overhaul of US immigration policy.The bill includes $60bn in aid to Ukraine, $14.1bn for Israel in its war in Gaza, and about $20bn for new enforcement efforts along the US-Mexico border.Republican House leaders said days before its release on Sunday night that they would reject the bipartisan Senate bill, and instead vote on a bill providing aid only to Israel.The bill represented a rightward tilt in Senate negotiations over border measures, yet the backlash was intense from conservatives. They savaged the border policy proposal as insufficient, with Donald Trump leading the charge.“This is a gift to the Democrats. And this sort of is a shifting of the worst border in history onto the shoulders of Republicans,” the former president and likely Republican presidential nominee said Monday on The Dan Bongino Show. “That’s really what they want. They want this for the presidential election so they can now blame the Republicans for the worst border in history.”Many Senate Republicans – even those who have expressed support for Ukraine aid and the contours of the border policy changes – raised doubts Monday they would support the package. A private Republican meeting was scheduled in the evening to discuss it.Still, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer moved toward a key test vote on Wednesday.“The actions here in the next few days are an inflection point in history,” the New York Democrat said in a floor speech Monday afternoon. “The security of our nation and of the world hangs in the balance.”Schumer worked closely with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell on the border security package after the Kentucky Republican had insisted on the pairing as a way to win support for Ukraine aid. The Democratic leader urged his colleagues across the aisle to “tune out the political noise” and vote yes.“For years, years our Republican colleagues have demanded we fix the border. And all along they said it should be done through legislation. Only recently did they change that when it looks like we might actually produce legislation,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBoth Schumer and McConnell have emphasized for months the urgency of approving tens of billions of dollars for Ukraine’s fight, saying that the US’s ability to buttress democracies around the world was at stake. Yet with the funding stuck in Congress, the defense department has halted shipments of ammunition and missiles to Kyiv.The Republican-majority House passed an Israel-only bill in November, but it was never taken up in the Democratic-led Senate, as members worked on Biden’s request for Congress to approve the broader emergency security package.The statement from House speaker Mike Johnson and representatives Steve Scalise, Tom Emmer and Elise Stefanik pointed to a provision in the bill that would grant work authorizations to people who qualify to enter the asylum system. They also argued that it would endorse a “catch and release” policy by placing people who enter the asylum system in a monitoring program while they await the final decision on their asylum claim.Under the proposal, people who seek asylum, which provides protection for people facing persecution in their home countries, would face a tougher and faster process to having their claim evaluated. The standard in initial interviews would be raised, and many would receive those interviews within days of arriving at the border.Final decisions on their asylum claims would happen within months, rather than the often years-long wait that happens now.But the House Republican leaders said: “Any consideration of this Senate bill in its current form is a waste of time.”Associated Press contributed to this report More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Protests as Atlanta council adopts new rules for referendum on Cop City

    The Atlanta city council adopted new rules on Monday that would allow the referendum process for the public to vote on the “Cop City” project to move forward. The vote came amid protests against the methodology the council adopted for signature matching on referendum petitions, which critics say gives the city a way to block a public vote on the controversial project.Three people calling for the signature matching element of the ordinance to be removed were escorted from the council chambers ahead of the 10-5 vote adopting the ordinance.“It just comes down to democracy or chaos. Which one do you support?” Tim Franzen asked city councilmembers at a hearing, before being hustled from behind the dais in a brief protest. “Today this isn’t even about a public safety center. It’s about whether democracy works.”Construction of the now-$110m Atlanta Public Safety Training Center began last spring after contentious hearings at which activists criticized its expense, its location in woodlands outside the city and the city’s circumvention of public input. Protests began to escalate in 2022 and began drawing national interest after police killed activist Manuel “Tortuguita” Terán near the center’s construction site in January 2023, shortly after a state trooper was wounded by gunfire.View image in fullscreenActivists have subsequently sabotaged construction equipment and disrupted development at the site. The city attributed a $20m increase in construction costs to the protests, though requests made to the Atlanta police foundation for additional details about these costs have gone unanswered. The foundation is building the training center under a lease agreement that has been a focal point for public criticism.The fight over Cop City has become a political football in Georgia politics. State and local police have arrested and charged 61 activists under Georgia’s racketeering act, accusing them of crimes ranging from criminal trespassing to domestic terrorism. The district attorneys of Fulton and DeKalb county – both progressive Democrats – have ceded prosecution on these charges to Georgia’s attorney general, Chris Carr, a Republican with political aspirations.Amid these arrests, activists last summer began gathering signatures on a petition for a referendum intended to block the city from opening the training facility. In December, organizers turned in petitions with more than 116,000 signatures, which would represent twice as many voters as any elected official in Atlanta has earned in as generation.However, an analysis by media organizations in Atlanta suggests that only about half of the signatures meet the legal standard under Georgia law required to call a referendum – a registered voter in the city proper, at the time of the last city council election, with a signature that clearly identifies the voter.View image in fullscreenThe method the city uses to validate a signature may make the difference between its acceptance and rejection, and whether the petition effort succeeds or fails. Councilman Michael Julian Bond noted that the ordinance explicitly bars the use optical character recognition, a key criticism of opponents. The adopted ordinance also provides for a mechanism for voters to cure a signature that is ruled invalid.But critics fear, given the procedural hurdles they have faced to date, that signature matching will be applied arbitrarily to block a public vote.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“While this is not exact match … the verification as it is listed for me can create issues for people experiencing disability and the elderly,” said Councilwoman Liliana Bakhtiari, an opponent of the proposed facility. “I have done all I can.”The petition has been in a state of limbo while legal challenges by the city over signature validation and the legality of the petition itself are resolved. The impasse kept a Cop City referendum off the ballot last year. Even if the council waived the petition and approved a referendum today – a prospect not under consideration – there isn’t enough time to hold a vote before state primaries on 21 May. City leaders claim construction is 70% complete and expect to open the training center by the end of the year.Organizers say they want a vote as soon as possible.“The next fight is that the mayor needs to drop the appeal, because they need the process to move forward. They need to let the count start,” said Marisa Pyle, an organizer with the Cop City Vote Coalition and former senior aide to Stacey Abrams at Fair Fight Action. “They now have a process. … The mayor said he wants the signatures to be counted. Let them be counted.” More

  • 213 Shares99 Views

    in US Politics

    House Republican leaders demand Senate reject immigration compromise; Haley joins opposition to deal – as it happened

    In a just-released statement, the top Republicans in the House called on the Senate to vote down the bipartisan immigration policy legislation.“Any consideration of this Senate bill in its current form is a waste of time. It is DEAD on arrival in the House. We encourage the U.S. Senate to reject it,” speaker Mike Johnson, majority leader Steve Scalise, whip Tom Emmer and conference chairwoman Elise Stefanik said.They instead called on Congress’s upper chamber to pass the Secure the Border Act, a package of hardline policies the House approved last year – among them, restarting construction of Donald Trump’s border wall – that Democrats have rejected.“Because President Biden has refused to utilize his broad executive authority to end the border catastrophe that he has created, the House led nine months ago with the passage of the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2). That bill contains the necessary components to actually stem the flow of illegals and end the present crisis. The Senate must take it up immediately,” they said.A bill to enact hardline immigration policies and send aid to Israel and Ukraine’s militaries is not even 24 hours old, but is already facing opposition that appears insurmountable. The House’s Republican leaders called on the Senate to reject the measure, and said that even if the chamber passes the bill, they will not hold a vote on it. Back in the Senate, an increasing number of Republican lawmakers say they will not support the legislation. But the worst news of all for the nascent proposal may have arrived from GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who called it “horrendous”.Here’s what else happened today:
    Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s majority leader, said the chamber will vote on the immigration bill Wednesday.
    Joe Biden remains supportive of the immigration proposal, saying, “doing nothing is not an option”.
    The special election to replace George Santos in a New York swing district could turn into a proxy battle over immigration reforms.
    James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican who was his party’s negotiator in the immigration talks, said voting down the proposal would amount to hypocrisy.
    Migrant aid groups as well as a major union spoke out against the immigration policy changes.
    The Senate’s Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer said the chamber will vote on the bipartisan immigration policy bill Wednesday.The legislation also includes military aid for Ukraine and Israel, and is supported by Joe Biden, as well as the Senate’s Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell. But its prospects in the House appear dire, after speaker Mike Johnson said the legislation will not be considered. Meanwhile, a growing number of Senate Republicans as well as some Democrats have also spoken out against the bill.In a speech on the chamber’s floor, Schumer said Wednesday’s vote “will be the most important that the Senate has taken in a very long time”, and blamed attacks from Donald Trump and others for undermining the legislation’s prospects.“The $64,000 question now, is whether or not senators can drown out the outside noise, drown out people like Donald Trump who want chaos, and do the right thing for America,” Schumer said.“I urge senators of goodwill on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing and turn the chaos out. History is going to look over our shoulders and ask if the Senate rose to the occasion. We must, we must act.”Asked by reporters what he expected to happen next with the immigration policy bill, Joe Biden said: “Hopefully passage in the Senate.”The president is today in Las Vegas, where he met with unionized culinary workers. He’s heading back to Washington DC later in the day.Non-profits working with asylum seekers and migrants have also come out against the Senate’s immigration reform bill.Marisa Limón Garza, executive director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, an El Paso-Texas based organization that provides legal services to migrants, said:
    Closing the border, creating a new ‘metering’ system, and debilitating our asylum laws will do nothing to address the underlying issues that force vulnerable children and families to flee their homes, seeking safety and a better life. Although the bill contains small silver linings, they come at too high a cost.
    Ayuda, which provides legal services to low-income immigrants in Washington DC and surrounding states, said:
    Amongst many of the draconian changes proposed, this legislation would create a new authority, with narrow exceptions, that would allow officials to summarily expel asylum seekers. It would also restrict screening standards for asylum seekers and expedite asylum claims to the extent that many will not be able to access counsel or adequately represent themselves.
    The Service Employees International Union opposed the bill as too extreme, with president Mary Kay Henry saying:
    Compromise is almost always necessary to achieve great goals, but the extreme Republicans who pushed this deal were never going to give up any of the items on their longstanding anti-immigrant wish list. From Trump on down, they have admitted that they see chaos as politically beneficial. We can support our international allies fighting for democracy without setting a dangerous precedent that does not reflect our values. Any Republican arguments to the contrary are in service of a political agenda and not of working people
    It’s not just members of Congress who are thinking about immigration. The Guardian’s Maanvi Singh reports that Latino voters in Nevada, a swing state where a Democratic senator is up for re-election in November, are also watching closely to see how Washington handles the issue:In East Las Vegas last week, there were few signs that Nevada was gearing up for the first presidential election contest in the western US, happening in mere days.The neighbourhood, the heart of the city’s Latino community, was bereft of lawn signs and campaign banners. There were no clipboard-wielding canvassers crowding its wide, palm-tree-lined streets. An occasional ad on the local Spanish-language radio station, encouraging listeners to vote, was one of the few signs that the presidential primaries were coming up.“Will I vote in the primaries? Yeah, maybe,” said Ruby Romero, 38, who owns a boutique in Vegas’s arts district. But, she admitted, she had almost forgotten about it.This week’s elections aren’t exactly competitive, and will inevitably move Joe Biden and Donald Trump toward a rematch in November.But in an election year that will determine the future of abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, the chances of meaningful climate action, the shape of the economy and perhaps even the fate of American democracy, voters here appeared particularly demoralised.Latinos make up one in five voters in the state, and in 2020 about 60% of Latino voters backed Joe Biden. It remains unclear, however, whether Democrats will be able to energise enough voters this year to replicate that feat.Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, the last major Republican presidential contender whose name is not Donald Trump, joined the ranks of the objectors to the Senate’s immigration proposal:Perhaps the most telling part of her comments is right at the beginning, where she says “I don’t think you wait till an election to pass a border deal because we need to get something done immediately.” Republicans have demanded tighter border security for years, but now that a presidential election is nine months away, Haley appears to be suggesting that the party is wise to turn down the deal and hope that one of their own is elected in November.The Republican senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham has thanked James Lankford for his role in negotiating the border bill, and said he is looking forward to making the bill “stronger”.In a statement posted to social media, Graham said he is “open-minded” on steps on how to improve the bill, adding that “something this significant cannot be rushed and jammed through”. He added:
    I am hopeful that Senator Schumer will allow an open amendment process to occur. If not, then the bill will die because of process.
    Nikki Haley raised $16.5m in January, her biggest monthly fundraising total to date, her presidential campaign said on Monday.The former South Carolina governor and last major challenger to Donald Trump brought in 69,274 new donors and $11.7m from “grassroots supporters” last month, the campaign said.The influx of cash comes amid growing calls from fellow Republicans that she withdraw from the race in order for the party to unite around a single candidate.“While Donald Trump blows $50 million of his donors’ money on his legal cases, Nikki Haley has been focused on talking to voters and saving our country,” Haley spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said in a statement, reported by the Washington Post.
    Hundreds of thousands of Americans are supporting Nikki’s campaign because they don’t want two grumpy old men and all their chaos, confusion, and grievances. They want a strong, conservative leader who will save this country.
    Democratic presidential challenger Dean Phillips defended continuing his longshot campaign despite a disappointing third-place finish in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, saying it was “a mission of principle”.The Minnesota congressman’s remarks about remaining in the race for the Oval Office came Sunday during an appearance on MSNBC’s The Weekend. Another guest on the show asked Phillips “what the hell are you doing” and “what’s being served here” with his presidential run, especially after Biden captured 96% of the votes cast in the previous day’s South Carolina primary. Phillips collected less than 2% of the vote and finished behind Williamson, a self-help author.“So what does your path look like at this point and why?” former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said to Phillips. Steele said Phillips, 55, was also prolonging narratives about the 81-year-old Biden’s age.“I know tradition dictates that you always protect the incumbent,” Phillips replied. But Phillips said challenging Biden was “a mission of principle”. He added:
    Someone’s got to do it.
    Phillips said he was also concerned that Biden’s unpopularity with the electorate could cost the Democrats the White House if he is nominated for another term in the fall.“We’re dumbfounded,” Phillips said.
    Yes, he’s got a commanding lead in the primaries – I get it. But look at the numbers. He is in a terrible position.
    Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has urged Speaker Mike Johnson to take up the border bill to the House floor.“I’m confident – hopeful is the right word,” Schumer told MSNBC this morning when asked about the bill’s chances of passing in the Senate.
    This is hard. And our Republican senators – we need a bunch of them – are under a lot of pressure from right-wing Trump part of the party.
    He insisted that the bill would pass if it were brought to a vote. He addressed Johnson directly, urging him to “do the right thing.” He said:
    You know what the right thing to do is. You know we need to fix our border. You know that it has to be bipartisan. The bill that you passed didn’t get a single Democratic vote in the House or the Senate. How are you going to get anything done?
    A bill to enact hardline immigration policies and send aid to Israel and Ukraine’s militaries is not even 24 hours old, but is already facing opposition that appears insurmountable. The House’s Republican leaders called on the Senate to reject the measure, and said that even if the chamber passes the bill, they will not hold a vote on it. Back in the Senate, an increasing number of Republican lawmakers are coming out against the legislation. But the worst news of all for the nascent legislation may have arrived from GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who called it “horrendous”.Here’s what else has happened today:
    Joe Biden remains supportive of the immigration bill, saying, “doing nothing is not an option”.
    The special election to replace George Santos in a New York swing district could turn into a proxy battle over immigration reforms.
    James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican who was his party’s negotiator in the immigration talks, said voting down the proposal would amount to hypocrisy.
    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has called on Congress to pass the immigration policy compromise, noting that its passage is tied to approving aid to Ukraine and Israel:Joe Biden also supports the beleaguered bill. After its release on Sunday, he said:
    If you believe, as I do, that we must secure the border now, doing nothing is not an option. Working with my administration, the United States Senate has done the hard work it takes to reach a bipartisan agreement. Now, House Republicans have to decide. Do they want to solve the problem? Or do they want to keep playing politics with the border? I’ve made my decision. I’m ready to solve the problem. I’m ready to secure the border. And so are the American people. I know we have our divisions at home but we cannot let partisan politics get in the way of our responsibilities as a great nation. I refuse to let that happen. In moments like these, we have to remember who we are. We’re the United States of America and there is nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Nearly half of US wants Trump election subversion verdict before November, poll says

    Nearly half of those in the US want to see Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion case resolved before the former president runs for the White House again in November, according to a poll published on Monday.Meanwhile, a quarter of Americans do not think Trump will ever concede if he loses a second time to Joe Biden, said the survey, commissioned by CNN.The survey in question found that 48% of those polled believed it was “essential” for there to be a verdict before November’s election. Another 16% said that they would at least prefer to see one.CNN’s poll also showed that expectations Trump would concede if he loses have dropped from 37% to 25% since October – and more than three-quarters (78%) think the former president would try to pardon himself of federal charges stemming from his presidency if he wins another stint in the Oval Office.Trump has been performing strongly in polls as compared with Biden. A survey by NBC News released on Sunday found that Biden is beset by a deficit of 20 percentage points against Trump in his handling of the economy, despite signs that the US may have achieved an almost unique “soft-landing” after a government and consumer spending boom during the Covid-19 pandemic.The poll also found that fewer than three in 10 voters approve of Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza war. And Biden lags Trump by 16 points on the perception of competence and effectiveness, a reversal from 2020.But the question of Trump’s legal quagmire hangs over Biden’s unfavorable polling. The former president is facing more than 90 criminal charges accusing him of trying to illegally nullify his defeat by Biden, illicitly retaining government secrets after leaving the White House and making illegal hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has claimed an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump.If Trump is convicted of a felony, the poll found, a five-point lead for Trump flips to a two-point lead for Biden.Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.On Friday, the US district judge Tanya Chutkan formally postponed the federal election interference case against Trump over which she is presiding. It was scheduled to begin in March, but that date has been pushed back while a Washington DC appeals court weighs arguments from the Trump legal team that he is immune from prosecution for actions taken while he was president.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIf the DC appeals court rejects Trump’s appeal, it will probably advance to the US supreme court, meaning further trial delays.Public desire for a resolution to that case before the November election comes as recent polling by Bloomberg found majorities of voters in seven key swing states would be unwilling to vote for Trump if he is convicted of a crime (53%) or sentenced to prison (55%) in one of the four cases against him overall.But, according to CNN, views of Trump’s efforts to stay in office despite his 2020 defeat in effect remain unchanged from the summer of 2022, with 45% of US adults saying he acted illegally, 32% unethically, and 23% that he did nothing wrong at all. More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in US Politics

    San Francisco considers measure to screen welfare recipients for drug addiction

    London Breed, the Democratic mayor of San Francisco, is pushing a pair of controversial public safety proposals on the 5 March ballot, including one that would require single adults on welfare to be screened and treated for illegal drug addiction or else lose cash assistance.Breed also supports a ballot measure that would give police access to more technology, such as the use of drones and surveillance cameras. In November, she will face voters in a competitive re-election bid.San Francisco is in a struggle to redefine itself after the pandemic left it in economic tatters and highlighted its longstanding problems with homelessness, drugs and property crime. Opponents say both ballot measures are wildly out of step with San Francisco’s support for privacy and civil liberties and will only hurt the marginalized communities the city prides itself on helping.But Breed, the first Black woman to lead San Francisco, said at a January campaign stop that residents from poorer, Black and immigrant neighborhoods were pleading for more police, and recovery advocates are demanding change as more than 800 people died of accidental overdoses last year – a record fueled by the abundance of cheap and potent fentanyl.“They said San Francisco makes it too easy for people to access and to use drugs on the streets of the city and we need to do something a lot more aggressive,” Breed said at Footprint, an athletic apparel and shoe store that has been repeatedly burglarized.While Breed’s name isn’t on the presidential primary ballots going out now – San Francisco uses a method where residents rank mayoral candidates by preference a single time in November – the two measures she’s pushing are. They serve as an opening salvo for her re-election campaign as she faces off against fellow moderates who say her approach to the city’s problems has been weak.Violent crimes are low in San Francisco, but the city has long struggled with quality-of-life crimes.Breed said rates of retail theft and auto smash-ins have declined recently, thanks in large part to strategic operations by city police. Similarly, police have stepped up enforcement of drug laws, including by issuing citations to people using drugs in public as a way to disrupt the behavior and an opportunity to persuade the person cited to seek help.But she said San Francisco needs to do more.If approved by voters, Proposition F would offer another way to compel treatment, by allowing the city to screen single adults on local welfare for substance abuse. People found to be abusing illegal drugs would be required to enroll in treatment if they want to receive cash assistance from the city, which maxes out at just over $700 a month.Opponents say coercion doesn’t work and homelessness may increase if the measure passes. Drug addicts are not criminals, they say, and there are not enough treatment beds and counseling services as it is.A crackdown on drugs is reminiscent of the failed war on drugs that disproportionately harmed Black families, said Chris Ballard, co-executive director of Coleman Advocates, which pushes for improvements for Black and Latino youth in San Francisco.“There are more ethical ways to address the issue aside from punitive measures, and that’s the proper way to take care of a community, to show true support,” he said.Yet Trent Rhorer, executive director of the San Francisco Human Services Agency, which provides cash assistance and employment services to low-income residents without dependent children, said the current situation is in conflict with the agency’s mission: to improve lives.“To give someone who’s addicted to fentanyl $700 a month, I don’t think it helps improve their lives,” he said. “In fact, I think it does the opposite.”Compelling treatment has become more acceptable in Democratic California, despite angst over the potential loss of civil liberties, as visible signs of homelessness and mental illness, fentanyl addiction and unsafe street behavior surge.Last year, several counties rolled out an alternative mental health court created by Gavin Newsom, the Democratic former mayor of San Francisco and now governor of the state, to fast-track people with untreated schizophrenia and related disorders into care, and in March voters will take up a statewide mental health proposition that some say will increase involuntary treatment.Rhorer said the welfare program for single adults – which serves about 9,000 people a year – already asks applicants about substance abuse, with about 20% self-reporting an issue. A data check with the department of public health revealed that almost one-third of recipients had been diagnosed with a substance use disorder, he said.The ballot measure would replace that question with a more rigorous screening test that would be verified by an addiction specialist. If substance abuse is found, Rhorer said, the specialist and applicant would agree on treatment options that include residential care, a 12-step program, individual counseling and replacement medication.There is no requirement that the person be sober, only that they make good-faith efforts to attend their program, with the hope that “at one point a light bulb will go off”, Rhorer said.The measure calls for the city to pay the rent of those accepted into the program for 30 days or longer to avoid eviction. About 30% of the people who fatally overdosed in 2023 were unhoused, and more were living in subsidized city housing.. More