Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘Out of control’: Congresswoman sounds alarm over ‘unchecked’ gambling boom

    America’s “unchecked” gambling boom risks exacerbating a nationwide mental health crisis, according to a congresswoman pushing for federal government support. The industry is pushing back hard.Operators must be held “accountable” for rising addiction rates, Andrea Salinas told the Guardian, after lawmakers proposed legislation that – if approved – would provide tens of millions of dollars in funding to help those affected.Sports betting is “proliferating like never before”, she said. “Rather than try to put the genie back in the bottle, let’s make sure we have the research and the treatment before it does become out of control.”The supreme court struck down a decades-old law in 2018 that had banned sports betting across much of the nation. The market is now legal in 38 states, attracting billions of dollars in wagers every month. Its rapid growth has coincided with a spike in addiction cases, according to clinicians, counsellors and campaigners.Diverting taxes already raised on sports wagers towards compulsive gambling support services would make “the entire industry healthier”, said Salinas, a Democrat representing Oregon’s sixth district. “I, as much as anybody, enjoy the recreation of gambling, in a fun casino. When done, like everything, in moderation, it’s fun, right?“But the access to these applications for sports betting has taken us in a direction that is harmful. Nearly 7 million Americans are struggling with the gambling addiction.”The Grit (Gambling addiction Recovery, Investment and Treatment) Act, proposed this month by Salinas and the Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal, is pinned around the federal sports excise tax. Receipts from the tax, which dates back to the early 1950s, have surged in recent years as the legal market expanded; it raised an estimated $271m last year.Under the proposed law, half of the revenues raised by the tax would be set aside for gambling addiction treatment, prevention and research. Taxes would not rise and the funds for treatment would go through an existing federal grant program.Researchers have identified close links between gambling addiction and other mental health disorders, like alcoholism. “If we let this go unchecked, this could be one of the sources” of an escalating mental health crisis, said Salinas. “We would be ignoring an upstream problem that we could start to address.”Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, which has been pushing for the Grit Act, has said it would “significantly bolster” addiction prevention, research and treatment resources.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut gambling operators are against the proposal. “Our industry’s growth means that there’s never been more attention paid to, or money invested in, problem gambling support than there is today,” Chris Cylke, senior vice-president at the American Gaming Association, said.Suggesting the Grit Act would “give criminals a leg up”, Cylke argued that the excise tax – upon which it is based – should be repealed. “Today, this antiquated policy puts the nascent legal market at a competitive disadvantage against offshore illegal operators, who do not pay any taxes and prey on vulnerable customers.”Advocates for greater compulsive gambling support criticised the “predictable, shortsighted objection” of operators. “The gambling sector can no longer reasonably expect to evade external responsibility,” said Derek Webb, founder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. “The Grit Act is our best chance to save lots of lives by doing what’s responsible, fair and inevitable.”But Salinas is braced for a long campaign to pass the Grit Act. Politicians in Washington and beyond “aren’t really paying attention” to gambling addiction rates, she said. Congress is “not doing a lot of substantive work right now. So, yeah, it could take a while.” More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in US Politics

    Donald Trump ordered to pay E Jean Carroll $83.3m in defamation trial

    A New York City jury awarded $83.3m to E Jean Carroll in her defamation trial against Donald Trump on Friday.Carroll will receive $18.3m in compensatory damages and $65m in punitive retribution. The former president is paying Carroll compensatory damages of $18.3m – $11m to fund a reputational repair campaign. The $7.3m is for the emotional harm caused by Trump’s 2019 public statements. Carroll and her legal team were beaming as they left court in a black SUV. They did not answer questions immediately after court let out.Moments after the decision was announced, Trump decried it as “absolutely ridiculous” on Truth Social, and said he would be filing an appeal.“I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party,” Trump wrote. “Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!”The Manhattan federal court decision comes less than one year after Carroll won $5m in her sexual abuse and defamation trial against Trump.This sum stems from Carroll’s rape claim against the president in a June 2019 New York magazine article. The publication ran an excerpt of her then-forthcoming book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal.In that excerpt, Carroll said that Trump raped her inside the dressing room of a luxe Manhattan department store around early 1996. The tenor of Trump’s denials – saying, for example, that she lied and was a political operative – became the subject of her 2019 defamation suit against him.At the time, Carroll could not sue Trump over the alleged assault, as it would have taken place outside the civil statute of limitations. A novel New York state law in 2022, the Adult Survivors Act, opened a one-year window for adult accusers to file suit for incidents outside the civil statute of limitations.Carroll filed another lawsuit, this one over the incident and defamatory statements after Trump’s presidency ended. This lawsuit proceeded to trial first and the judge in both cases, Lewis Kaplan, determined jurors’ findings – that Trump sexually abused Carroll and tarnished her reputation – would be accepted as fact in this trial.As a result, Trump could not re-litigate her sexual abuse claim. The jurors were tasked only with weighing financial penalties for damaging Carroll’s reputation – and the sum required to keep Trump from making still more defamatory statements.“I’m here because Donald Trump assaulted me, and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened,” Carroll said on the stand. “He lied, and it shattered my reputation. I expected him to deny it, but to say it was consensual, when it was not. But that’s what I expected him to say.”She continued: “The thing that really got me about this was, from the White House, he asked if anyone had any information about me, and if they did, to please come forward as soon as possible, because he wanted the world to know what’s really going on – and that people like me should pay dearly.”Trump did not attend Carroll’s first trial but made appearances at the second – marking the first time she confronted him publicly in a courtroom. Trump’s comportment during the courtroom showdowns was in keeping with his infamously bombastic behavior, prompting warnings from the judge.“Mr Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me, and if he disregards court orders,” Kaplan warned.“Mr Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial … I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that.”“I would love it, I would love it,” Trump retorted with a gesture.“I know you would, you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently,” Kaplan said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe end stages of this trial were also marked by another hallmark of Trump’s legacy: Covid-related chaos. On 22 January, trial proceedings were postponed as one juror experienced coronavirus symptoms; his leading attorney, Alina Habba, also told judge Kaplan that she felt unwell and had been exposed to Covid.Trump did take the stand on 25 January. Kaplan restricted the scope of her questions and his responses, as per his prior ruling that he could not re-litigate her claims.Habba was allowed to ask: “Do you stand by your testimony in the deposition?”“One hundred percent, yes,” he said, referring to the deposition in which he denied her claims.“Did you deny the allegation because Ms Carroll made an accusation?”“That’s exactly right. She said something, I consider it a false accusation. No difference,” Trump retorted. This sparked an objection from Carroll’s camp. Kaplan said that everything after “yes, I did” was stricken.“Did you ever instruct anyone to hurt Ms Carroll in your statements?”“No. I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency,” Trump said. Carroll’s team objected again. Kaplan deemed that everything after “no” be stricken, so jurors were ordered to disregard this statement.In total, Trump’s direct and cross testimony lasted about two or three minutes. More

  • 188 Shares159 Views

    in US Politics

    Aid to Ukraine and Israel in doubt as House speaker says he won’t support deal

    The prospects for the US Congress approving new aid to Ukraine as well as military assistance to Israel worsened on Friday after the Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, said he was unlikely to support a deal under negotiation in the Senate that is considered crucial to unlocking the funds.A bipartisan group of senators have for weeks been looking for an agreement to implement stricter immigration policies and curtail migrant arrivals at the southern border with Mexico, which have surged during Joe Biden’s presidency. Republicans have named passing that legislation as their price for approving aid to Ukraine, whose cause rightwing lawmakers have soured on as the war has dragged on and Donald Trump, who has been ambivalent about sending arms to Kyiv, draws closer to winning the Republican presidential nomination.While the precise details of the immigration bargain have yet to be released, Johnson told his Republican colleagues in a letter that “if rumors about the contents of the draft proposal are true, it would have been dead on arrival in the House anyway”.Underscoring his stridency on the topic, Johnson reiterated his demand that the Democratic-controlled Senate vote on the Secure the Border Act, a hardline proposal that would essentially resurrect Trump’s immigration policy by restarting construction of a wall on the border with Mexico and forcing asylum seekers to wait in that country while their claim is processed.He also announced the chamber would move ahead with its plan to impeach the homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, whom Republicans have accused of mishandling border security.“When we return next week, by necessity, the House Homeland Security Committee will move forward with Articles of Impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas. A vote on the floor will be held as soon as possible thereafter,” Johnson wrote.The speaker’s demands cast into further doubt on Congress’s ability to find agreement on reforming the immigration system – which has for decades been one of the most intractable issues in Washington – as well support two countries the Biden administration considers national security priorities. The United States has been the top funder of Kyiv’s defense against the Russian invasion that began in February 2022, and after Hamas’s 7 October terror attack against Israel, Biden argued in an address from the Oval Office that the two country’s causes were linked, and asked Congress to approve aid to both, as well as funds for Taiwan and to further secure the border.Johnson responded by having House Republicans approve a bill that would fund aid to Israel alone and also cut the Internal Revenue Service’s budget, boosting the federal deficit. Democrats, who control the Senate, have rejected both that measure and the Secure the Border Act, leaving the bipartisan immigration reform negotiations as the last avenue remaining to win approval of Ukraine aid.Congresses and presidents since the days of George W Bush have tried and failed to reform the US’s system for admitting workers and immigrants. The long odds of the latest negotiations succeeding were underscored on Wednesday when Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, told his lawmakers that because Trump wanted to campaign on immigration reform, he doubted that the party would support any agreement that emerges from the talks.“We are in a quandary,” McConnell said, according to Punchbowl News. “The politics of this have changed.”Senators from both parties expressed outrage, with Chris Murphy, the main Democratic negotiator in the talks, saying: “I hope we don’t live in a world today in which one person inside the Republican party holds so much power that they could stop a bipartisan bill to try to give the president additional power at the border to make more sense of our immigration policy.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe following day, Politico reported that McConnell changed his tone, telling Republicans in a meeting that he still supported the talks. But the damage may well have been done.The GOP’s control of the House means that Republicans may have the votes to impeach Mayorkas, and, at some point, Biden, whom the party has also opened an inquiry against. But the Senate’s Democratic leaders are almost certain to reject the charges against the homeland security chief, who has used his appearances before Congress to describe the country’s immigration system as “broken” and urge reforms.On Friday, the top Democrat on the homeland security committee sent a letter to its Republican chair, Mark Green, objecting to the charges against Mayorkas, noting that the House hasn’t voted to approve the impeachment and that Green had reportedly promised donors months ago that he’d go after him.“Nothing about this sham impeachment has abided by House precedent, but all of it has been done to reach the predetermined outcome you promised your donors last year,” the committee’s ranking member, Bennie Thompson, wrote. More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in US Politics

    Andrew Cuomo found to have subjected 13 women to ‘sexually hostile work environment’

    The former New York governor Andrew Cuomo subjected at least 13 female government employees “to a sexually hostile work environment” and retaliated against four who complained, a formal agreement between the state executive chamber and the US justice department said.“Governor Cuomo repeatedly subjected these female employees to unwelcome, non-consensual sexual contact; ogling; unwelcome sexual comments; gender-based nicknames; comments on their physical appearances; and/or preferential treatment based on their physical appearances,” read the agreement, which was released on Friday.Cuomo, a Democrat and son of a former governor, Mario Cuomo, rose to national prominence during the Covid pandemic in 2020 and was widely held to hold presidential ambitions.He denied accusations of sexual misconduct, but Cuomo resigned in August 2021 after the New York attorney general, Letitia James, said she found 11 such claims credible. He was replaced by his lieutenant, Kathy Hochul.Now 66, Cuomo is fighting civil lawsuits from two accusers and, in the words of the New York Times, “slowly manoeuvring toward re-entering political life”. But, the paper added Friday, such “efforts may be sharply compromised by the justice department findings”.The investigation by the federal civil rights division and the US attorney for the eastern district of New York opened in August 2021.The settlement released Friday said Cuomo “subjected at least 13 female employees of New York state, including executive chamber employees, to a sexually hostile work environment”.The executive chamber was aware of the governor’s conduct but did not “effectively remediate the harassment on a systemic level”.“When employees attempted to raise concerns about Cuomo’s conduct to his senior staff,” the agreement said, “Cuomo’s staff failed to follow equal employment opportunity policies and procedures to promptly report those allegations to the appropriate investigative body.“Indeed, the executive chamber’s response was designed only to protect Cuomo from further accusations.”The investigation “also found that Cuomo’s senior staff were aware of his conduct and retaliated against four of the women he harassed”.The agreement listed reforms to be implemented and some undertaken under Hochul, beginning with the removal of employees held to have “facilitated Cuomo’s misconduct and/or engaged in unlawful retaliation against women who raised concerns”.Rita Glavin, a Cuomo lawyer, told the Times: “This is nothing more than a political settlement with no investigation. Governor Cuomo did not sexually harass anyone.”But Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general in the civil rights division, said: “Executive chamber employees deserve to work without fear of sexual harassment and harsh reprisal when they oppose that harassment.“The conduct in the executive chamber under the former governor, the state’s most powerful elected official, was especially egregious because of the stark power differential involved and the victims’ lack of avenues to report and redress harassment.”Hochul said: “The moment I took office, I knew I needed to root out the culture of harassment that had previously plagued the executive chamber and implement strong policies to promote a safe workplace for all employees, and [I] took immediate action to do so.”Breon Peace, US attorney for the eastern district of New York, said: “We appreciate the governor’s stated determination to make sure that sexual harassment does not recur at the highest level of New York state government.” More

  • 225 Shares109 Views

    in US Politics

    He’s beaten his Republican rivals and is ahead in the polls. But Trump is vulnerable | Jonathan Freedland

    You’d think a week spent in the snow and ice of New Hampshire, watching Donald Trump stroll to a double-digit victory over his last remaining Republican rival, would have left me filled with angst about the presidential election in November. Sure enough, given that a second Trump presidency would have a truly disastrous impact on the US and the world, the fact that the now near-certain rematch of Trump and Joe Biden remains a “coin flip”, in the private assessment of one of America’s foremost electoral analysts, still makes my palms go clammy.But to my surprise, I left the frozen American north-east not hopeful, exactly, but lifted by the thought that Trump is weaker, and Biden stronger, than this week’s headlines – or the latest polls showing the current president six points behind the previous one – might suggest. Now when I hear the words “coin flip”, I react like Jim Carrey’s character in Dumb and Dumber, when told that the odds of him winning over the woman of his dreams are one in a million: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance.”Of course, the causes for gloom have not gone away. Biden’s age remains the biggest single obstacle to his re-election: even Democrats worry that he might just be too old to serve a second term, which would see him leave his Oval Office desk at the age of 86. Inflation has hurt him: a pair of 18-year-olds at Bedford High School told me they had cast their first vote for “Donald J Trump”, as they reverentially put it, in part because of high petrol prices. And too many voters blame Biden for the fact that “the world is on fire”, to quote Trump’s challenger, Nikki Haley. They see wars in Ukraine and in Gaza, hear Trump boast that there was no such trouble when he was in charge, and blame Biden.That aversion to overseas conflict, and fear of the US getting sucked in, is now loud in the once hawkish Republican party, but anti-war sentiment among Democrats poses its own danger to Biden. He is struggling to hold his party together. The left, and younger voters especially, are appalled by his support for Israel in its fight against Hamas – a sentiment that will only harden after the international court of justice’s ruling on Friday demanding that Israel ensures acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. Young voters were a bedrock for Biden in 2020, but he can rely on them no longer. Those teenagers for Trump I met in Bedford were not the only ones.And yet, there are encouraging signs. In New Hampshire, Trump’s win over Haley was assured by his three-to-one lead among registered Republicans. His overall margin narrowed because she beat him convincingly among undeclared or independent voters, who under New Hampshire’s rules are allowed to take part in a party primary. I spoke to dozens of them, and few were motivated by admiration for the former US ambassador to the UN. On the contrary, their driving purpose was to stop “that man”, many expressing plain disgust for Trump.In the race for his party’s nomination, those views were easily swept aside by the Maga, or Make America Great Again, majority. But in a general election, independents can make the difference between victory and defeat. That they so heavily rejected Trump – 58% backing Haley – spells trouble for the former president. Those are voters Biden should be able to win over, but there are seams to mine among dissident Republicans too. In New Hampshire, about 25% of them could not stomach voting for Trump. Even if most Republicans eventually fall in line, it would take only a small slice to defect to Biden or stay home to deny Trump a second term.That may not be so hard to achieve. For the presumptive nominee remains as repellent as ever. His victory speech on Tuesday was a reminder of his talent for obnoxiousness. He humiliated one-time rivals who now back him and, as if setting out to alienate the suburban female voters who often form a decisive swing bloc in US elections, nodded along as the crowd chanted the nickname he’s given Haley – “birdbrain” – while he mocked the outfit she had worn at her own event earlier that evening: “I watched her in the fancy dress that probably wasn’t so fancy.”The macho boor stuff works well inside the Maga bubble, where the devotees love it, but it will do Trump no favours over the course of an exceptionally long general election campaign, which began, in effect, this week and will stretch to November. Paradoxically, Trump may have benefited from his post-6 January spell of enforced exile from most social media platforms, limiting how much Americans saw him. Now the spotlight is back on – and it is rarely flattering.That is especially true of his multiple and continuing court cases. Among the Republican base, the 91 felony charges against him are a badge of honour, proof that he’s a victim of the liberal deep state; among the wider US electorate, they don’t play so well. Note that even among those who voted for Trump in New Hampshire, 13% believe that, were he convicted of a crime, he would not be fit to be president. A verdict may not come in time for 5 November, but it’s further proof of Trump’s vulnerability.What of Biden’s strength? There was no real Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but there was a challenger, a perfectly competent congressman called Dean Phillips. Even though the president was not on the ballot, he crushed Phillips, thanks to a drive to get Democrats to “write in” Biden’s name. That suggests organisational muscle.And he can press at least two issues that have a proven record of winning elections for Democrats. The first is abortion, following the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2022 Dobbs case to end the constitutional protection of abortion rights. Trump brags that he’s “proud” of that, because it was he who appointed three rightwing judges to the court. But it’s not a popular position. On the contrary, Republicans have repeatedly lost at the ballot box since the court’s ruling, whether in elections or state-level referendums. “Dobbs may have broken the Republican party,” says the Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, who accurately predicted his party’s success in the 2022 midterms and is bullish about Biden’s chances now.The second issue is the core anti-Trump argument: that the man who tried to overturn the 2020 election is a would-be dictator who poses a threat to democracy. Add to that some healthy economic numbers and rising consumer confidence, and you can see the outline of a winning message.To be sure, the messenger remains flawed, though the veteran Republican consultant Mike Murphy thinks there’s a line Biden could use to deal with the age issue, one that would draw the contrast with his opponent: “We’re both old – but he’s old and crazy.” There’s peril, too, in third-party candidacies who would split the anti-Trump vote. The point is, no one could possibly be complacent about a Biden victory and Trump defeat in 2024. Like the man said, it’s a coin flip – but the evidence is telling us there’s a chance.
    Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump abruptly leaves court during closing arguments in E Jean Carroll trial

    As E Jean Carroll’s second defamation trial against Donald Trump neared its final stage Friday morning in New York, proceedings quickly took a turn for the absurd with the judge threatening his lawyer with “lockup” and the ex-president leaving about 10 minutes into the former Elle writer’s closing argument. Trump returned to court for his defense’s closing.Trump’s abrupt departure came as Carroll’s lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, was delivering her closing argument – shortly after she noted that he had continued to defame the columnist during this very trial. Trump left.Kaplan had provided a chronology of the harm endured by Carroll due to Trump’s attacks in advance of the remark that appeared to trigger him.“Donald Trump’s denials and vicious accusations were all complete lies. That has already been proven, right in this courtroom, by a jury,” Kaplan said.“This case is also about punishing Donald Trump for what he has done and for what he continues to do,” Kaplan said, adding shortly thereafter: “This trial is about getting him to stop, once and for all.”Kaplan noted that he started to smear Carroll within a day of her last court victory, which found that he had defamed her. “Donald Trump, however, acts as if these rules and laws just don’t apply to him” and pointed out that he spent “this entire trial” attacking Carroll with nefarious posts.It was right about this time that Trump walked out of court.“Excuse me,” Judge Lewis Kaplan said. “The record will reflect that Mr Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom.”At the end of her closing, Roberta Kaplan urged jurors to hold Trump accountable – and insisted that the only way to make him follow the law and stop defaming Carroll would be a hefty penalty.“The one thing Donald Trump cares about is money,” she said. “While Donald Trump may not care about the law, while he certainly does not care about the truth, he does care about money.“The question for you as a jury is this: given Donald Trump’s insistence on continuing to defame Ms Carroll and considering his immense wealth, how much will it take to make him stop?“He thinks the rules that govern everyone else don’t apply to him,” Kaplan added.Trump’s lead attorney in this case, Alina Habba, started delivering her closing around 11.15am and quickly blamed Carroll for the backlash and suggested the former president was the victim.Habba said: “There is no one that can truly express the frustration of the last few years better than my client, the former president of the United States.”Habba then played a video that had been introduced by Carroll’s team in which he doubled down on his denials, in a way her camp contended was defamatory.“I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. The verdict is a disgrace, a continuation of the greatest witch-hunt of of all time,” Trump said in this video clip.“You’re right that’s how he feels. Can you imagine a world where someone can accuse you of a terrible accusation and you defend yourself, respond to reporters on the south lawn as the sitting president?” Habba said.“The president has been consistent. She’s right, he has said this same thing over and over and over again and do you know why he has not wavered? Because it’s the truth,” Habba said, prompting an objection from Carroll’s team.She then started to attack Carroll’s credibility, which appeared to edge toward breeching Kaplan’s prohibition on litigating the facts.“If you violate my instructions again, Ms Habba, you may have consequences,” he warned.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionProceedings appeared poised to be rocky before they started.Within less than 10 minutes of Trump’s arrival to the courtroom, as both sides were discussing items they wanted to include in their closings before jurors entered, the judge threatened Habba, with punishment when she tried to interrupt him, saying: “You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup. Sit down!”As closings unfolded, Trump continued to go on the attack against Carroll, with several posts appearing on his Truth Social account, including one calling her account a “hoax”.Closings came one day after Trump – whom Carroll sued for defamation over his denials of her rape allegation in 2019 – testified for less than five minutes, as the judge had limited what his lawyer could ask him, and what he could say.The judge had previously ruled that jurors’ findings in Carroll’s first trial against Trump – that he sexually abused her around late 1995 and when she came forward in 2019, defamed her – would apply in this trial. This ruling meant that the ex-president couldn’t re-litigate her claims and, as a result, jurors are only weighing damages in the ongoing proceedings. Trump did not attend the first trial.One of the questions Habba was allowed to ask was: “Do you stand by your testimony in the deposition?”, during which he denied Carroll’s claim.“One hundred per cent, yes,” he replied.“Did you deny the allegation because Ms Carroll made an accusation?” Habba pressed.“That’s exactly right. She said something, I consider it a false accusation. No difference,” he said, prompting an objection from Carroll’s team. Kaplan ordered that everything after “yes, I did” would be stricken.“Did you ever instruct anyone to hurt Ms Carroll in your statements?”“No. I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency,” Trump answered, prompting yet another objection. Kaplan ordered that everything after “no” be stricken, meaning jurors were directed to disregard his commentary.The jury started deliberating at 1.40pm local time. More

  • 138 Shares159 Views

    in US Politics

    ‘Utter stupidity’: Missouri Republican bids to bring back dueling for senators

    A Missouri Republican’s proposal to reintroduce dueling to solve statehouse differences was branded “utter stupidity” by a leading historian of political violence.“Back in the day,” Joanne B Freeman of Yale tweeted, “they were smart enough to take dueling OUTSIDE. The draft that I saw suggests doing it in the chamber. This doesn’t show guts or bravery or manhood – if it’s supposed to. It shows utter stupidity.”Freeman is the author of The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War.The state senator behind the proposal said he was making a point about the breakdown of regular order in Missouri politics.The draft rule change came to national notice when it was posted to social media by Democrats in the state senate.“The Missouri Republican civil war continues to escalate as a member of the Freedom Caucus faction has filed a proposed rule change to allow senators to challenge an ‘offending senator to a duel’,” they wrote.The Missouri Freedom Caucus is a hardline rightwing group on the lines of the group of the same name in the US House of Representatives and with a similarly fractious relationship with party leaders, impeding political business.The draft rule read: “If a senator’s honor is impugned by another senator to the point that it is beyond repair and in order for the offended senator to gain satisfaction, such senator may rectify the perceived insult to the senator’s honor by challenging the offending senator to a duel.“The trusted representative, known as the second, of the offended senator shall send a written challenge to the offending senator. The two senators shall agree to the terms of the duel, including choice of weapons, which shall be witnessed and enforced by their respective seconds.“The duel shall take place in the well of the senate at the hour of high noon on the date agreed to by the parties to the duel.”The author, Nick Schroer, represents District 2 in the Missouri senate. According to his biography, he is a lawyer, specialising in family law and criminal defence.His chief of staff, Jamey Murphy, told Newsweek that Schroer was “deeply committed to restoring a sense of honor in the Missouri Senate” but suggested “the idea of a duel … in a metaphorical sense”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSchroer told the Kansas City Star: “The behavior that we’ve seen on the floor, lack of communication from leadership, politics as a whole just eroding … If we’re going back in time and acting like an uncivilized society, I think we need to have discussion.”Dueling was long part of the American political scene, famously resulting in the killing of the founding father Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr in 1804. It had largely died out by the 1850s but other forms of political violence continued.Freeman has illuminated how incidents of political violence – including the South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks’ caning of Charles Sumner, an anti-slavery senator from Massachusetts, in 1856 – paved the road to conflict.In 2021, after Donald Trump incited the January 6 Capitol attack and amid fears of rising violence, Freeman told the Guardian of the incidents she studied: “Depending on how it’s acted out and the language that’s used and the posturing that’s taken by the members of Congress, it’s deliberately intended to rile up Americans, which it does.“That kind of violence can encourage violence, intensify political rhetoric [and] seemingly justify extremism and violence. It has an impact on the public. If the public gets riled up, they’re going to demand more things from their representatives – more violence, more extremism.” More