More stories

  • in

    Trump trial nears end as prosecutors confident he ‘didn’t have the goods’

    “You can’t con people – at least not for long,” Donald Trump observed in his 1987 bestseller The Art of the Deal. “You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”The former president spent decades trying to create excitement with wonderful levels of promotion, getting all kinds of press, and throwing in more than a little hyperbole. But did he have the goods?This is the central question Justice Arthur Engoron, of the state supreme court in Manhattan, has been considering over the last five weeks. On Monday, the fraud trial enters its final, fateful leg. Trump himself will take the stand. The stakes are high. Although Trump will not go to jail, regardless of the outcome, because this is a civil case, he is fighting for the future of his corporate empire.The case against Trump, although inextricably linked to his political rise, is focused on his business dealings. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake as the ex-real estate tycoon prepares to take the stand.Letitia James, the New York attorney general, has accused Trump and key members of his inner circle at the Trump Organization of fraudulently inflating his wealth to secure better loans from banks. She asked for $250m and the cancellation of Trump’s business licenses in New York, a move that would end the Trumps’ ability to run businesses in the state.This is not a jury trial, and Engoron has already made up his mind on the foundation of the case, finding Trump and his adult sons guilty of financial fraud before the trial started. Should an appellate court uphold this ruling, Trump will essentially lose the ability to operate his business in New York – and control of properties including Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan, from whose golden staircase Trump launched his successful presidential campaign.“The judge has already found fraud,” said Jed Handelsman Shugerman, professor of law at Boston University. “The question is the extent of the liability and the remedy. It seems like it’s going in a direction that will be a very serious liability and very serious remedy.”The court’s attention turned this week to his eldest sons. This is a family business, after all, officially run by Donald Jr and Eric since their father assumed the presidency.Both brothers sought to distance themselves from the alleged fraud, insisting it was up to others to ensure financial records were correct. “For purposes of accounting, I relied upon the accountants,” Don Jr, executive vice-president of the Trump Organization, said. “I never had anything to do with the statements of financial condition,” Eric, also executive vice-president at the company, added hours later.Their sister, Ivanka, is also scheduled to be questioned on Wednesday. Unlike Don Jr and Eric, she is not a named defendant in the case. While her lawyers argued she should not have to testify, this request was denied by an appeals court.While the family appearances are grabbing all the headlines, Engoron might ultimately be more interested in testimony that could help gauge the liability of the alleged fraud. On Wednesday Michiel McCarty, chair and CEO of the investment bank MM Dillon & Co, said the inflation of Trump’s wealth allowed the Trump Organization to secure better rates for loans. He calculated that banks lost more than $168m in interest payments as a result.The media spotlight on this trial has been brightest when high-profile witnesses – from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer turned foe, to the former president himself next week – take the stand. But at the heart of the action sit stacks of emails, contracts and financial statements. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” Engoron remarked last month, as he rejected another bid by Trump’s lawyers to obtain an early verdict.Gregory Germain, professor of law at Syracuse University, said prosecutors must demonstrate that Trump was “unjustly enriched” by falsified financial statements. “In order to do that, the attorney general needs to show that somebody took these statements at face value, believed they were true, and made loans at lower interest rates that they would have, or priced an insurance policy at a lower price – something to show they were harmed by this, and he was enriched.”This element was “completely missing in the earlier stages of the case”, Germain added.Trump is set to be grilled over allegations that documents fraudulently magnified the value of his assets. Earlier in the trial, for example, prosecutors noted that his Trump Tower apartment was once listed as 30,000 sq ft and worth $327m, despite other paperwork – including one document signed by the former president in 1994 – reporting that the apartment was actually under 11,000 sq ft.Commentators expect Trump, like his sons, to try and distance himself from the accounting. But he is likely to be asked by prosecutors about allegations that he directly, if not explicitly, instructed executives to inflate his net worth.Cohen, his former personal attorney, testified that Trump would scrutinize the value of his assets and declare, “I’m actually not worth $4.5bn, I’m really worth more like 6,” before sending senior executives away. They would return to him “after we achieved the desired goal,” according to Cohen.A current Trump Organization employee, Patrick Birney, testified that the chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg informed him between 2017 and 2019 that Trump – by this point in the White House – wanted his net worth to go up.Since Engoron’s pre-trial ruling, Trump has argued he is worth “much more” than what is shown in his financial statements, which don’t include what he describes as his “most valuable” asset: his brand. The Trump Organization has been “slandered and maligned”, he has complained, denying his fortune was exaggerated.The former real estate mogul will attempt in the coming days to make the case that his empire was accurately valued. Even after Engoron ruled otherwise, Trump insists no one lost out as a result.Prosecutors are confident they are on the cusp of bringing Trump to justice. They believe – to paraphrase the defendant’s observation some four decades ago – that he didn’t have the goods, and they’re catching on. On Monday we may see who really has the goods. More

  • in

    Renegade review: Adam Kinzinger on why he left Republican ranks

    Adam Kinzinger represented a reliably Republican district in the US House for six terms. He voted to impeach Donald Trump over the insurrection and with Liz Cheney was one of two Republicans on the January 6 committee. Like the former Wyoming congresswoman, he earned the ire of Trump and the GOP base.A lieutenant colonel and air force pilot, Kinzinger read the terrain and declined to run again. In his memoir, he looks back at his life, family and time in the US military. He also examines the transformation of the Republican party into a Trumpian vessel. With the assistance of Michael D’Antonio, biographer of Mike Pence, he delivers a steady and well-crafted read.Kinzinger finds the Republicans sliding toward authoritarianism, alienating him from a world he once knew. On 8 January 2021, two days after the Trump-inspired coup attempt, he received a letter signed by 11 members of his family, excoriating him for calling for the president to be removed.“Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!’ the letter began. “We were once proud of your accomplishments! Instead, you go against your Christian principles and join ‘the Devil’s army’ (Democrats and the fake news media).”The word “disappointment was underlined three times”, Kinzinger counts. “God once.”Elected in 2010 with the backing of the Tea Party, once in office, Kinzinger distanced himself from the Republican fringe. The movement felt frenzied. Hyper-caffeinated. He cast his lot with Eric Cantor, House majority leader and congressman from Virginia. “Overtly ambitious”, in Kinzinger’s view, Cantor also presented himself as “serious, sober and cerebral”. Eventually, Cantor found himself out of step with the enraged core of the party. In 2014, he was defeated in a primary.Cantor was too swampy for modern Republican tastes. Out of office, he is a senior executive at an investment bank.Simply opposing Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act wasn’t enough. With America’s first Black president in the White House, performative politics and conspiracy theories took over.Kevin McCarthy, deposed as speaker last month, earns Kinzinger’s scorn – and rightly.“I was not surprised he was ousted,” Kinzinger told NPR. “And frankly, I think it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.”On the page, Kinzinger paints McCarthy as weak, limitlessly self-abasing and a bully. He put himself at the mercy of Matt Gaetz, the Florida extremist, prostrated himself before Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia extremist, and endured 15 rounds of balloting on the House floor to be allowed the speaker’s gavel – an illusion of a win.McCarthy behaved like “an attention-seeking high school senior who readily picked on anyone who didn’t fall in line”, Kinzinger writes. The California congressman even tried, if feebly, to physically intimidate his fellow Republican.“Once, I was standing in the aisle that runs from the floor to the back of the [House] chamber,” Kinzinger remembers. “As [McCarthy] passed, with his security man and some of his boys, he veered towards me, hit me with his shoulder and then kept going.”Apparently, McCarthy forgot Kinzinger did stints in war zones.Kinzinger also takes McCarthy to task for his shabby treatment of Cheney, at the time the No 3 House Republican. On 1 January 2021, on a caucus call, she warned that 6 January would be a “dark day” if they “indulged in the fantasy” that they could overturn Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.McCarthy was having none of it. “I just want to be clear: Liz doesn’t speak for the conference,” he said. “She speaks for herself.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat, Kinzinger writes, was “unnecessary and disrespectful, and it infuriated me”.These days, McCarthy faces the prospect of a Trump-fueled primary challenge. But he is not alone in evoking Kinzinger’s anger. Kinzinger also has tart words for Mitch McConnell and his performance post-January 6. The Senate minority leader was more intent on retaining power than dealing with the havoc wrought by Trump and his minions, despite repeatedly sniping at him.When crunch time came, McConnell followed the pack. Kinzinger bemoans McConnell’s vote to acquit in the impeachment trial, ostensibly because Trump had left office, and then his decision to castigate Trump on the Senate floor when it no longer mattered.“It took a lot of cheek, nerve, chutzpah, gall and, dare I say it, balls for McConnell to talk this way,” Kinzinger bristles, “since he personally blocked the consideration of the case until Trump departed.”Kinzinger devotes considerable space to his own faith. An evangelical Protestant, he is highly critical of Christian nationalism as theology and as a driving force in the Republican party. He draws a direct line between religion and January 6. Proximity between the cross, a makeshift gallows and calls for Mike Pence to be hanged was not happenstance.“Had there not been some of these errant prophecies, this idea that God has ordained it to be Trump, I’m not sure January 6 would have happened like it did,” Kinzinger said last year. “You have people today that, literally, I think in their heart – they may not say it – but they equate Donald Trump with the person of Jesus Christ.”In his book, Kinzinger echoes Russell Moore, former head of public policy of the Southern Baptist Convention: “Moore’s view of Christianity was consistent with traditional theology, which does not have a place for religious nationalism. Nothing in the Bible said the world would be won over by American Christianity.”Looking at 2024, Kinzinger casts the election as “a simple question of democracy or no democracy … if it was Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I don’t think there’s any question I would vote for Joe Biden”.
    Renegade is published in the US by Penguin Random House More

  • in

    Rashida Tlaib claims in video that Biden supports Palestinian genocide

    Michigan Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, has released a video accusing Joe Biden of supporting the “genocide of the Palestinian people”.Tlaib has been a withering critic of Biden’s staunch backing of the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza and the White House refusal to listen to demands from some progressive Democrats to back calls for a ceasefire.The video represents by far her most blunt criticism of Biden and his administration and includes a warning that she believes his stance on the war will hurt his re-election chances in 2024, as Michigan has a significant Arab American population.“Mr President, the American people are not with you on this one,” Tlaib, who has called for an immediate ceasefire in the Israeli offensive on Gaza, said in the video on the platform X, warning: “We will remember in 2024.”The post continues with an overlay of lettering: “Joe Biden supported the genocide of the Palestinian people. The American people won’t forget. Biden, support a cease-fire now. Or don’t count on us in 2024.”This week Tlaib fought off an attempt in Congress led by extremist Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene to formally reprimand her for “antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations and leading an insurrection” after she participated in a pro-Palestinian protest in which she aired the accusation of an Israeli genocide of Palestinians.Tlaib has faced criticism from within her own party. Last week, a pro-Israel Democratic group began airing a TV ad in Detroit criticizing the congresswoman, one of two Muslim women in the legislative body, for voting against US funding of Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system and a resolution condemning the 7 October Hamas cross-border attack.Tlaib’s video post highlights a growing issue for Biden, one that often splits Democratic support down generational lines as well as political ones. Tlaib is among 18 Democrats from the mostly younger, progressive-leaning wing of the party co-sponsoring a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.Last week, a senior Democratic senator, Dick Durbin of Illinois, also called for a ceasefire – but only if Israeli hostages held by Hamas were released. “Whatever the rationale from the beginning has now reached an intolerable level. We need to have a resolution in the Middle East that gives some promise to the future,” Durbin told CNN.The video posted by Tlaib counter-posed comments by Biden on US support for Israel with film of bodies lying in the rubble of Gaza, children wounded by Israeli airstrikes and global protests against the Israeli bombardment of Gaza in response to the deadly 7 October Hamas cross-border attack.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOne clip features a demonstration in Michigan in which protesters chanted “from the river to the sea” – a chant that many Jews and Israelis view as calling for the eradication of Israel, though others say it can have a multitude of meanings.In a follow-up post on X, formerly Twitter, Tlaib stated: “From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.”Tlaib has become a lightning rod for divisions in the US with some of her own party and Republicans saying she has not condemned Hamas fervently enough and others saying she is a victim of Islamaphobia and hostility toward those who advocate for Palestinian civil rights. More

  • in

    In a world on fire, Biden struggles to banish the curse of Trump

    Is Joe jinxed? In less than three years as US president, Joe Biden has faced more than his fair share of international crises. America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan blew up in his hands like a cluster bomb. Then came Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Europe’s biggest war since 1945. Now, suddenly, the Middle East is in flames.It could just be bad luck. Or it could be Biden, who prides himself on foreign policy expertise, is not as good at running the world as he thinks. But there is another explanation. It’s called Donald Trump. If Biden’s presidency is cursed, it’s by the toxic legacy of the “very stable genius” who preceded him.It’s worth noting how the poisonous effects of Trump’s geostrategic car crashes, clumsy policy missteps and egotistic blunders continue to be felt around the world – not least because he hopes to be president again. In 2020, with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side, Trump unveiled his “ultimate deal” for peace in Israel-Palestine.His plan was a gift to rightwing Jewish nationalists, offering Israel full control over Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank and Jordan Valley while shattering hopes of a viable Palestinian state. It was laughably, amateurishly lopsided. Except it was no joke. It excluded and humiliated Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, convinced many that peaceful dialogue was futile and so empowered Hamas.Netanyahu had long advised Trump that the Palestinians could be safely ignored, normalisation with Arab states was a better, more lucrative bet and Iran was the bigger threat. Now he could barely contain his glee. “You have been the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,” he cooed. Naturally, Trump lapped it up.The catastrophic consequences of Trump’s dangerous fantasising are now plain to all – but it’s Biden, his re-election prospects at risk, who is getting heat from left and right. Partly it’s his own fault. He thought the Palestinian question could be frozen. Meanwhile, Trump, typically, has turned against Netanyahu while praising Hamas’s close ally, Iranian-backed Hezbollah, as “very smart”.The 2018 decision by Trump, egged on by Israel, to unilaterally renege on the west’s UN-backed nuclear counter-proliferation accord with Iran was the biggest American foreign policy blunder since the Iraq invasion. Ensuing, additional US economic sanctions fatally weakened the moderately reformist presidency of Hassan Rouhani.Iran took Trump’s confrontational cue – and shifted sharply to the anti-western, rejectionist right. A notorious hardliner, Ebrahim Raisi, president since 2021, has pursued close alliances with Russia and China. At home, a corrupt, anti-democratic clerical oligarchy, topped by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, brutally suppresses dissent, notably advocates of women’s rights.Mahsa Yazdani is the mullahs’ latest victim. Her “crime”, for which she was jailed for 13 years, was to denounce the killing by security forces of her son, Mohammad Javad Zahedi. Such persecution is commonplace. Yet if the Barack Obama-Biden policy of engagement, backed by Britain and the EU, had been maintained by Trump, things might be very different today, inside and outside Iran.Instead, Biden faces an angry foe threatening daily to escalate the Israel-Hamas war. Iran and its militias are the reason he is deploying huge military force to the region. Iran is why US bases in the Gulf, Syria and Iraq are under fire. And thanks to Trump (and Netanyahu), Iran may be closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons capability.Trump’s uncritical, submissive, often suspiciously furtive attitude to Vladimir Putin has undermined Biden’s Russia policy, doing untold, lasting harm. Untold because Democrats have given up trying to cast light on at least a dozen, publicly unrecorded Trump-Putin calls and meetings over four years in the White House.It’s not necessary to believe Moscow’s spooks possess embarrassing sex tapes, or that Trump solicited Russian meddling in US elections, to wonder whether he cut private deals with Putin. Did he, for example, suggest the US would stand aside if Russia invaded Ukraine, where there had been fighting over the Donbas and Crimea since 2014? Trump has a personal beef with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. That alone is sufficient to shape his policy.Trump’s criticism of European allies and threats to quit Nato caused a damaging loss of mutual confidence that Biden still struggles to repair. For his part, manipulative Putin sticks up for the former president. He recently declared that federal lawsuits against Trump amounted to “persecution of a political rival for political reasons”. Evidently, he’d like to see his pal back in power.Did Trump’s behaviour in office, his impeachments and failed coup, encourage Putin (and China’s Xi Jinping) to view American democracy as sick, failing and demoralised. Probably. Trump’s 2020 Afghanistan “peace deal” – in truth, an abject capitulation to the Taliban – confirmed their low opinion. It led directly to the chaotic 2021 withdrawal and a shredding of US global credibility that was largely blamed on Biden.Little wonder Putin calculates that American staying power will again fade as Trump, campaigning when not in court, trashes Biden’s Ukraine policy and his House Republican followers block military aid to Kyiv. Unabashed by his Middle East fiasco, Trump vainly boasts he would conjure a Ukraine peace deal overnight – if re-elected (and not in jail).It’s an unusually challenging time in world affairs. And Biden has been unlucky domestically, too, given a post-pandemic cost of living crisis and a supreme court gone rogue. Yet his biggest political misfortune remains the noxious global legacy and continuing, uniquely destructive presence of Trump.He is more than just a rival waiting for an 80-year-old president to slip and take a tumble. Symbolically, Trump is nemesis. He is the darkness beyond the pale, he’s a monster lurking in the depths, he’s the enemy within. He’s Joe’s Jonah.
    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

  • in

    Nikki Haley’s unexpected rise from ‘scrappy’ underdog to Trump’s closest rival

    On Monday, Nikki Haley returned to the building where her political career began to formally submit the paperwork to appear on the Republican presidential primary ballot in her home state of South Carolina. Haley held up her filing for the cameras. In loopy writing she had scrawled: “Let’s do this!”The exclamation punctuated Haley’s emergence as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. It comes nearly 20 years after Haley’s election to the South Carolina statehouse, having bested a 30-year Republican incumbent in a come-from-behind victory that stunned her party and began her unlikely ascent to the governor’s mansion and then to become Donald Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations.“I’ve always been the underdog,” Haley said in remarks at the statehouse on Monday. “I enjoy that. It’s what makes me scrappy.”In a Republican primary still thoroughly dominated by Trump, Haley is enjoying, for now, the next best thing: an unexpected rise to second place.For Republicans desperate to move on from Trump, the 51-year-old’s “adult-in-the-room” candidacy presents a compelling choice: a conservative leader with executive experience and a foreign policy hawk who pushed “America First” on a global stage. Her record, combined with her personal story as the daughter of Indian immigrants, would be hard to beat in a general election, her proponents argue, and would help broaden Republicans’ appeal among women, suburbanites and independents – groups that recoiled from the party during the Trump years.A pair of strong debate performances, a consolidating field and a sharp new focus on foreign policy following Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel have helped elevate Haley’s profile – and prospects – as she woos Republican voters and donors.In the early voting states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, polls show Haley surging past Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor whose campaign has stalled ever since he entered the race as de facto runner-up to Trump. She is also gaining ground in Iowa, which launches the Republican nominating process.In a survey released on Monday by the Des Moines Register, Haley climbed 10 points to 16%, putting her even with DeSantis as he struggles to break through against Trump.But underscoring just how difficult it will be for any candidate not named Trump to win the nomination, the poll found that the twice-impeached former president now facing four criminal indictments maintained a 27-point lead in Iowa, less than three months before the state’s caucuses.“It is slow and steady wins the race,” Haley said, previewing her strategy at the capitol building on Monday. She predicted the once-sprawling Republican field would winnow considerably after Iowa and New Hampshire before the race turns to her “sweet state of South Carolina” where she vowed: “We’ll finish it.”“I’ve got one more felIa I’ve gotta catch up to,” Haley told the crowd, “and I am determined to do it.”Last month, Trump’s former vice-president Mike Pence, ended his bid for the White House. Before that the former Republican congressman Will Hurd, suspended his campaign and endorsed Haley. In an op-ed, he argued that she has “the character and credentials to lead, the willingness to take on Mr. Trump, and the conservative record needed to beat Joe Biden”.That is the essence of Haley’s pitch to voters: that she is the most electable. To argue her case, she points to polling that shows her beating Biden in a hypothetical general election matchup.On the campaign trail, she likes to remind Republican voters that the party has lost the popular vote in the last seven out of eight presidential elections. “That’s nothing to be proud of,” she told the Daily Show guest host Charlamagne Tha God on Wednesday.Electability is the strongest argument Trump’s Republican rivals can make to voters, said Gunner Ramer, political director of the anti-Trump Republican Accountability Pac. But it’s almost certainly not enough to pry the nomination from him.There was a window after Republicans’ poor showing in the 2022 midterms when Trump appeared vulnerable to a primary challenge, he said. But his grip on the party has not only recovered since then, each indictment against him has seemed to harden the loyalty he inspires from his followers.“Her campaign is something out of 2015,” Ramer said. “It’s a reminder of what a competent Republican presidential campaign could look like if it were 2015. But we are in an era of a Donald Trump-led and inspired Republican party.”Strategists say Haley’s path to the nomination would probably require a strong performance in New Hampshire and an even better one – if not an upset – in South Carolina to send her into Super Tuesday as the clear Trump alternative.Despite growing calls for the Republican field to consolidate behind Haley, polls still show her trailing far behind Trump in both states. But longtime supporters say not to underestimate her, especially not in her home state, where she’s never lost an election.“In South Carolina, the same people who voted for Donald Trump for president twice have voted for Nikki Haley for governor twice,” said Katon Dawson, a former chair of the South Carolina Republican party who supports Haley. “It’s early yet.”While Trump has been holding his signature rallies between courtroom appearances and avoiding the debate stage, Haley has kept a frenetic campaign schedule, embracing the retail politics that she became known for in South Carolina. This week, she spoke to an overflow crowd at a diner in New Hampshire, where she was joined by the state’s Republican governor, Chris Sununu, a prominent Trump critic whose endorsement is highly coveted.“Are you ready to endorse me?” she teased.“Getting closer every day,” he replied.The clearest sign of Haley’s momentum may be the attention she’s drawing from her former boss.“Donald Trump isn’t stupid. He knows a threat when he sees one,” said Preya Samsundar, a spokesperson for a pro-Haley Super Pac. “And the fact that he’s zeroing in on Nikki instead of DeSantis is very telling.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAt a recent campaign rally in Iowa, Trump, who used to focus his ire almost exclusively on DeSantis, assailed Haley as a “highly overrated person”. Repeatedly referring to her by the derogatory nickname “Birdbrain”, Trump complained to the crowd that Haley had broken her promise to him that she would not run against him for the Republican nomination if he ran in 2024.Haley’s turn in the spotlight will inevitably invite more scrutiny. Ahead of next week’s Republican debate in Florida, Haley and DeSantis have ramped up their attacks on each other, tussling over who has a more hardline track record on immigration and foreign policy among other policy issues.In a spiky back-and-forth, DeSantis accused Haley of wanting to resettle refugees from Gaza in the United States, to which Haley is firmly opposed. She has assailed DeSantis for distorting her words.DeSantis’s team has waved off any suggestion that he and Haley’s campaigns are on opposite trajectories, arguing that the Florida governor remains Trump’s strongest challenger.“This is a two-man race, and Team Trump knows it,” Bryan Griffin, a press secretary for the DeSantis campaign, said in a statement. “That’s why they’re spending $1m to attack DeSantis in Iowa after proclaiming the primary was ‘over’.”Democrats are also weighing in against her. In recent weeks, they have sought to elevate Haley’s conservative record, particularly on abortion, which has been a damaging issue for Republicans since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade last year.Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee who is also from South Carolina, accused Haley of “trying to rewrite history” by softening her approach on abortion. As governor, he noted, Haley signed into law a 20-week abortion ban that did not include exceptions for rape or incest.“Nikki may be singing a different song now, but don’t be fooled,” Harrison wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “when it comes to the issues, she is just as extreme as the rest of the MAGA field.”Perhaps Haley’s biggest asset at the moment is the sudden salience of foreign policy, amid the deepening conflict in Gaza.In recent weeks, Haley has emphasized her staunch support of Israel. As Trump’s UN ambassador, she championed his administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and then relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv. She also pulled the US out of the UN human rights council after accusing it of displaying “unending hostility towards Israel”.Haley used a recent appearance at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual meeting in Las Vegas to issue some of her most scathing attacks on Trump to date, questioning his capacity to lead the country at such a precarious moment. With wars raging in the Middle East and Europe, and China posing new challenges, Haley said the stakes were too high for another “four years of chaos, vendettas and drama”.“America needs a captain who will steady the ship,” she said, “not capsize it.”As she plows ahead, Haley is also testing her party’s willingness to elect a woman of color to the nation’s highest office.In her campaign launch, she nodded to the possibility that her candidacy could make history. “I will simply say this: may the best woman win.” (In the same speech she also denounced “identity politics” and “glass ceilings”.)No woman has ever won a Republican presidential primary contest, let alone the party’s nomination. And to do so, she must wrest control of the party from the frontrunner, a former president with a long record of attacking women and people of color in demeaning and vulgar terms.“Top predictors of votes for Donald Trump are hostile sexism and racial resentment,” said Kelly Dittmar, director of research and a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.“So how do you as a south Asian woman run against the person who has won on sentiments that also work against you as an individual?”Dawson, the former South Carolina party chair, said if any Republican can defy the odds and beat Trump, it will be Haley. He says he’s counting on the voters in South Carolina to their first female governor make history again by putting her on the path to becoming America’s first female president.“Indira Gandhi of India. Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain. Angela Merkel of Germany,” he said. “Next it’s Nikki Haley.” More

  • in

    Who is Democratic congressman Dean Phillips – and why is he taking on Biden?

    For people who know the Democratic Minnesota congressman Dean Phillips, his run for presidency is perplexing. For some of them, it’s also disappointing, maybe even enraging. But they also think he’s genuine in his quest to go up against Joe Biden in the Democratic primary, despite how it might affect his own political career and how it could damage Biden in one of the most consequential elections in recent US history.Phillips announced his run for the presidency in New Hampshire last week, saying it was time for the next generation to lead in a pointed reference to concerns about Biden’s age. He says he is a fan of Biden’s and a supporter of his policies, but he is 54, while Biden is 80. Phillips, the heir to a distilling empire who also co-owned a gelato company, is injecting his own wealth into his presidential campaign – solving any problem of raising funds.In Minnesota, where Phillips represents a purple district filled with wealthier suburbs of Minneapolis, Phillips first ran for Congress in the state’s third congressional district and flipped a longtime Republican seat blue. In his next two elections, he won more and more voters to his side, preaching pragmatic politics and driving a “government repair truck”.Ann Gavin helped him. She knocked on doors, delivered campaign signs. The 70-year-old Democratic voter from Plymouth, Minnesota, admires the congressman and the work he’s done for the district. She thinks he would be a great president someday, too, with his business savvy and political skills.“I’ve got friends who are upset. I’m more confused than upset,” she said. “I just think the timing is wrong. And he probably knows that too. So I’m not sure if he’s going to accomplish much.”Steve Schmidt, the anti-Trump Republican strategist, serves as a campaign adviser to Phillips. Schmidt said all the polling he’s seen shows Biden losing to Trump in 2024. Biden’s vulnerability is a private concern for Democrats, yet none of them will publicly admit it, he claims. The idea that voters having a choice in the primary will ultimately threaten democracy by throwing the election to Trump “demonstrates how far off the rails we’ve gotten”, he said.Phillips was not made available for an interview himself.In his run for the White House, the little-known Phillips now has to introduce himself to key early voting states then possibly the whole country. Schmidt sees that as an asset: he doesn’t have decades of “political stink on him” to overcome, and he can build up a lot of name recognition quickly because “you can get famous very fast in American politics”, he says.Phillips plans to run in New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, then reassess from there. If he drops out, he will concede with dignity and throw all his weight behind defeating Donald Trump, Schmidt said.In Minnesota, at least, voters in his district and active Democrats know him. To some of them, his decision to run felt more personal – and also potentially disastrous.Ken Martin, the chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, recruited Phillips to run for Congress after trying for many years. Martin and others worked hard to get Phillips elected and flip the seat in the third district. He saw Phillips as a “rising star” in the party who was charting his path in Washington.Now he thinks that’s all gone.“He just pissed it all away on this vanity project that’s not really going to end up with him being the nominee of the party,” Martin said. “Here he is, 54 years old, and he basically blew his whole political career on something that was never going to be, just to make a point, and I’m not even sure what the point is.”Whenever Phillips would appear in the media over the past year talking about how someone else should run against Biden, Martin said he would reach out to express his disappointment and share how it wouldn’t be a good move politically or personally.He is not alone. Among some of Phillips’s previous donors and supporters, there is a sense of betrayal and abandonment. For Martin, it’s not clear who, if anyone, is encouraging Phillips to run, despite it also seeming like he’s earnestly made the decision.“One thing you can say about Dean Phillips: he is a very genuine and sincere guy. He’s thoughtful,” Martin said. “This is not just some sort of kneejerk deal. I don’t think he came to this conclusion lightly, and as much as I disagree with that conclusion, I think it would be hard-pressed for anyone who actually knows Dean to suggest that he’s not sincere or genuine in his belief on why he’s doing this.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe legislators who represent the areas Phillips’s district covers released a statement this week detailing their support for Biden, who visited Minnesota this week. Phillips won’t get organizational or financial support from the Democratic National Committee or state parties, making campaigning more difficult in an already-difficult run against a sitting president.Not having the support of the party infrastructure isn’t the same as not having support from Democratic voters, Schmidt said. “The most out-of-touch people in the country work at the DNC.”.There are two schools of thought among Democrats on how this could play out: Phillips could undermine Biden by hitting on his weak points during a primary, leaving the president all the more vulnerable in the general election. Or Phillips’s campaign could energize Biden and his supporters, buoying them up as they fend off a challenger.The Phillips v Biden matchup is likely to focus mostly on Biden’s age, given the two don’t differ much on policy. While primary candidates often launch long-shot campaigns as a way to move the leading candidate closer to their positions, in this instance, Phillips’s presence in the race can’t make Biden younger. And a focus during the primary on Biden’s age can play into Republicans’ hands, as it’s already something they use to attack the president.Schmidt said the question of whether Phillips’s run brings attention to Biden’s age is “premised on the absurdity that something Congressman Phillips is doing is bringing attention to something that is clearly evident”.“The congressman isn’t taking the paper off of the package, so to speak, on that question, and he’s not going to talk about the president’s age,” he said. “Why would anyone talk about the president’s age? The president’s age is what the president’s age is.”Back at home, Democrats aren’t just grappling with seeing a friend or someone they respected make a decision they don’t agree with. They’re also worried about what could happen in the third district.Phillips’s district isn’t deep blue – it’ll require more money and effort from Democrats to keep it in their hands without Phillips. Phillips hasn’t said whether he’ll continue to run for re-election in his district, though he will face a primary if he does. In Minnesota, the state party has an endorsement process that assesses all candidates instead of immediately throwing its weight behind incumbents.Phillips’s presidential campaign might not last until Minnesota’s primary, on 5 March. If he’s still in it, Gavin, who knocked doors for Phillips, probably wouldn’t vote for him. She’d consider it, if he got a lot of traction in prior states and was pulling ahead, but she doesn’t want Trump to return to office.“Would I vote for him?” Gavin said. “Boy, certainly not if I thought it was going to hurt Biden’s chances, so I guess maybe I wouldn’t. That says it all, right?” More

  • in

    Trump family on trial: five takeaways from a week in the New York fraud case

    The fifth week of the New York fraud trial of Donald Trump ended smack in the middle of a family affair and with another gag order for the combative Trump team.Trump’s elder sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, took the witness stand in New York this week and testified they had little knowledge about the financial statements at the center of the case. Next week, Donald Trump is expected to take the stand on Monday, followed by daughter Ivanka Trump on Wednesday.The New York attorney general’s office has been building its case that Trump, his adult sons and executives at the Trump Organization knowingly inflated the value of assets to boost the former president’s net worth when brokering deals. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled before the trial started that documents prove the family had fudged financial statements to do this. The trial has been about whether Trump will have to pay a fine of at least $250m for committing fraud.It’s getting closer to the end. The attorney general’s office plans to rest its case against Trump after the family finishes testifying.Here are five things we learned from the trial’s fraught fifth week.The Trump family’s strategy: blame gameOver the three days that Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump testified on the witness stand, both brothers pointed to the company’s accountants and lawyers as responsible for handling the financial statements at the center of the case.This is despite multiple emails and signed documents that show the brothers, who serve as top executives of their father’s company, were consulted by employees preparing the statements and brokered deals in which the statements were used to confirm Trump’s net worth.Trump Jr said that they relied on the accountants Mazars to include accurate information in the statements, as they were “intimately involved” with the company’s finances.“Mazars for 30 years was involved in every transaction, every LLC. They would have been a key point in anything that was related to accounting,” Trump Jr said.It’s worth noting that Mazars USA dropped the Trump Organization as a client in 2022, and a representative from the firm, Donald Bender, who had worked closely with the Trump Organization, said earlier in the trial that he relied on the Trump Organization to give him accurate information.Later that day, when Eric Trump took the stand, he similarly insisted that the company’s accountants and lawyers were in charge of the financial statements.“I never had anything to do with the statements of financial condition,” Eric Trump said.Prosecutors questioned Eric Trump about an appraisal for the Trump Organization by the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield for a conservation easement, or a type of tax break. Eric Trump said he had no recollection of the appraisal, though emails shown in court showed multiple meetings and emails he had had with the appraiser at the time in 2014.“I really hadn’t been involved in the appraisal of the property,” Eric Trump said on the stand, appearing to grow frustrated. “You pointed out four interactions … I don’t recall McArdle [the appraiser] at all. I don’t think I was the main person involved.“I don’t focus on appraisals, that’s not the focus of my day,” Eric Trump followed up, speaking quickly, saying that he was focused on construction and physical development of properties.Trump’s elder sons signed multiple documents saying the company was giving fair and accurate information in its financial statementsBoth of Trump’s adult sons denied ever working on the statements of financial condition. Eric Trump went so far as to imply that he only ever learned about the statement when the attorney general opened the case against the family. But multiple documents show both brothers signed off on deals that involved the use of the financial statements to confirm their father’s net worth.Trump gave his sons power of attorney, meaning they could sign documents on his behalf, including bank certifications affirming the use of statements of financial conditions to verify Trump’s net worth and assets.Responding to these certifications, Trump Jr said that he would have “signed a dozen of them during his time at the company”. When asked whether he signed the certifications with the intention that the banks would rely on the financial statements, Trump Jr said that he could not speak to the intent of the banks.“I know a lot of bankers that do their own due diligence,” he said.The next day, when a similar bank certification was pulled up for Eric Trump, he responded: “I don’t choose what the bank relies on” but said that he believed the statements were “absolutely accurate”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe paper trail is thicker for Eric Trump, but …Eric Trump got the brunt of questioning when it came to his knowledge of financial statements in the company. Multiple email correspondences suggested he had been consulted for the statement over the years.Multiple emails came from the former Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney, who wrote two separate emails to Eric Trump, one in 2013 and another in 2017, that started with: “Hi Eric, I’m working on your dad’s financial statement … ”.McConney would go on to note in a spreadsheet of supporting data for the financial statement that he had talked to Eric Trump over the phone to discuss the figures for the Seven Springs estate in Westchester, New York.“Having reviewed the emails we’ve been discussing over the course of the last hour, will you now concede that you were very familiar with [the financial statements]?” prosecutor Andrew Amer asked Eric Trump.“No, I was not very familiar with my father’s financial statement,” Eric Trump said.In another exchange with the prosecutor on correspondence over a North Carolina golf club, where Eric was consulted to affirm the family’s net worth for the deal, he said: “I do not recall ever working on my father’s statement of financial condition.”“People in the company have conversations with you all the time, and you provide them with answers when you can,” he said.Donald Trump Jr was also presented with emails from accountants that cited multiple discussions with Trump trustees, including Trump Jr, over the years that accountants used to confirm no changes to Trump’s net worth. Trump Jr replied that he had “no recollection” of the meetings.Trump Organization lenders lost out on an estimated $168m because of fudged financial statementsThe attorney general’s office brought in an expert witness, Michiel McCarty, the chief executive of an investment bank, to testify about the losses lenders unwittingly accrued when making deals with the Trump Organization because it had inflated the value of its assets.McCarty explained that if lenders had been given accurate valuations for the assets, they could have charged the Trump Organization higher interest rates. McCarty calculated the lost interest for loans given for four properties in the case at $168,040,168.Patience is wearing thin in the courtroomIn the middle of Eric Trump’s testimony, as prosecutors were pointing out that Trump invoked the fifth amendment against self-incrimination 500 times during his deposition for the case in 2022, Trump lawyers stood up to object. The objection soon boiled into a heated argument between Trump lawyer Christopher Kise and the judge, Arthur Engoron, over bias in the case. Kise made a passing comment about Engoron’s law clerk, whom Trump has attacked on social media, for her role in the trial, specifically that she passes notes to him during the proceedings.“I have an absolute right to get advice from my principal law clerk,” Engoron said, at one point pounding his fist on the bench. Engoron said that the continued references to his law clerk could be taken as stemming from misogyny. A defensive Kise said that they were “not misogynistic. I have a 17-year-old daughter.”The next day, when the issue was brought up again, Kise gave a speech on “perception of bias in the case” for “the record”. At some point, prosecutor Kevin Wallace stepped in to say that the defense team had been making similar claims for “weeks” and that they should file a motion instead of “continuing to interrupt the trial”. Engoron would ultimately expand a gag order, originally for just Trump, to his entire defense team prohibiting them from referring to “confidential communications” between him and his clerk.He also revealed his chambers had been “inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters and packages” since the trial began. More

  • in

    High stakes for abortion rights as Pennsylvania votes on key judge pick

    Pennsylvania voters will select a new member of the state’s supreme court on Tuesday in a judicial election that has become the unlikely focus of Republican billionaire donors, political action committees and abortion rights advocates.Democrat Daniel McCaffery is facing off against Carolyn Carluccio, a conservative judge whose apparent opposition to abortion access has drawn the ire of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive justice groups.As McCaffery and Carluccio compete for a seat on the Pennsylvania supreme court, total spending in the race surpassed $17m, according to the Associated Press – an unusually high price tag for an election that typically sees low voter turnout. But Democrats and abortion rights advocates hope Pennsylvania voters view Tuesday’s ballot as a proxy for reproductive freedom in Pennsylvania.“This election, Pennsylvania voters have a choice between Carolyn Carluccio, who has tried to hide her anti-abortion positions and dodge questions about the judiciary’s role in protecting abortion rights, and Daniel McCaffery, a proven champion of reproductive freedom,” said Breana Ross, campaigns director of Planned Parenthood Votes Pennsylvania.Abortion rights advocates hope to energize Pennsylvania voters by casting Carluccio as an existential threat to abortion access. This strategy delivered liberals a resounding victory in the Wisconsin supreme court race earlier this year, when record numbers of voters turned out to elect Janet Protasiewicz, a Democrat who pledged to defend abortion rights. Protasiewicz’s conservative opponent, Dan Kelly, refrained from voicing his opinion on voting rights.Carluccio’s campaign, taking its cues from Kelly’s unsuccessful playbook, has avoided sharing her views on abortion. After winning the primary election in May, Carluccio removed information about her opposition to abortion from her campaign website, according to a May report from the Keystone.Carluccio’s campaign site previously vowed to defend “all life under the law”.“When we redesigned our website, we chose to no longer include a résumé link. Judge Carluccio listed on her résumé that she would ‘defend all life under the law’, and she meant just that: under the law,” Rob Brooks, a spokesman for Carluccio’s campaign, told the Guardian.Carluccio has frequently branded herself as a non-political actor who operates outside the bounds of traditional partisanship.“I reject calls to rule based on partisan or ideological grounds and instead rule according to our laws,” Carluccio wrote in an August op-ed about her candidacy.Despite Carluccio’s insistence on her own ideological neutrality, her campaign has invited the support of distinctly rightwing groups. In a February letter to the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, Carluccio disclosed that her candidacy was endorsed by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, a leading anti-abortion group in the state.According to campaign finance reports, her campaign received over $4m from Commonwealth Leaders Fund, a political organization funded by the billionaire GOP donor Jeffrey Yass.Pennsylvania Democrats said Carluccio is hiding her ties to the anti-abortion movement in a disingenuous bid for primary voters. The general electorate is supportive of abortion access – 64% of all Pennsylvania voters in the 2022 midterms said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to polling from the Associated Press.“Her campaign is clearly trying to portray her as acceptable to a primary audience,” said JJ Abbott, executive director of Commonwealth Communications, a progressive political consulting firm. “They know abortion is a motivator for voters, since the Dobbs decision, voters are more likely to engage in elections because of what is at stake for abortion.”But the stakes of Tuesday’s election are not straightforward. Unlike Wisconsin, where the threat of the 1849 near-total abortion ban loomed overhead, the outcome of Pennsylvania’s supreme court race will not directly affect abortion access in the state. Tuesday’s race will not change the composition of Pennsylvania’s high court – four of the seven seats on the current bench are held by Democrat-affiliated justices. Carluccio is operating in what appears to be a much less dire political environment than Kelly, whose campaign struggled to avoid the topic of abortion while Wisconsin was feeling the effects of the 1849 ban.Still, Planned Parenthood and other reproductive justice advocates said the abortion rights movement needs to look ahead to the 2025 election, when three of Pennsylvania’s Democratic justices will appear on the ballot.The long-term maintenance of Pennsylvania’s liberal supreme court majority is a priority for abortion rights advocates. In September, Planned Parenthood Votes launched a seven-figure advertisement campaign against Carluccio, the largest ad buy in the group’s history.As anxieties mount, abortion rights supporters are hopeful that Pennsylvania voters, as in Wisconsin, will heed the warnings offered by Planned Parenthood on the long-term consequences of Carluccio’s candidacy.Dr Benjamin Abella, a medical professor and emergency physician in Philadelphia, said voters like him are “paying attention” to Carluccio’s efforts to hide her campaign’s ties to rightwing anti-abortion groups.“The public understands that we should not be lulled into a false sense of security on abortion rights, especially if a judge is keeping quiet on their intentions and positions,” he said. “There’s no such thing as a safe state any more and that any and every election poses a risk.” More