US Politics

The Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has said that he wants Elon Musk as an adviser if he becomes president.The billionaire biotech entrepreneur was in Newton, Iowa, campaigning at a town hall on Friday when he was asked about whom he would want as advisers for his potential presidency.Ramaswamy said in response that he wanted people with a “blank fresh impression” who do not “come from within” the government.“I’ve enjoyed getting to know better, Elon Musk recently, I expect him to be an interesting adviser of mine because he laid off 75% of the employees at Twitter,” NBC reports. “And then the effectiveness actually went up.”In an earlier interview this month with Fox News, Ramaswamy said of the layoffs: “What [Musk] did at Twitter is a good example of what I want to do with the administrative state … Take out the 75% of the dead weight cost, improve the actual experience of what it’s supposed to do.”Ramaswamy’s response on Friday also doubles down on comments he made in February: “Just as @elonmusk did at Twitter, as president I will release the ‘state action files’ from the federal government – exposing every instance where the feds pressured companies to take constitutionally prohibited actions. Roll that log over & see what crawls out. Won’t be pretty.”Since Ramaswamy joined the campaign trail, he has attracted the attention and praise from Musk, who earlier this month said: “He is a very promising candidate.”In response to another tweet in which Ramaswamy repeated his campaign values including “God is real,” “There are two genders,” “Human flourishing requires fossil fuels,” and “Reverse racism is racism,” Musk wrote: “He states his beliefs clearly.”Despite Ramaswamy positioning himself as an “outsider” and accusing his opponents of being “bought and paid for” by various GOP donors, a recent Guardian investigation found that Ramaswamy has deep ties to influential figures on both ends of the political spectrum including Peter Thiel, a rightwing donor and co-founder of PayPal.Ramaswamy’s other ties include Leonard Leo, a prominent rightwing activist currently under investigation in Washington DC over his efforts to install judges on federal courts including the supreme court.Other investigations by ProPublica and Documented have reported that Ramaswamy has delivered speeches at events staged by Teneo, a group chaired by Leo that seeks to “crush liberal dominance” in American life.Earlier this week, Ramaswamy’s campaign told the Associated Press that he had raised $450,000 in the first hours following the GOP primary debate on Wednesday night. More

The extreme religious right’s mission to roll back civil rights from abortion to public accommodations is being fueled by false facts and false history. Recent articles in the New Republic have documented the shaky factual foundation behind 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, the case in which the supreme court held that a website design business owned by an evangelical Christian, Lorie Smith, could refuse service to same-sex couples. Even more troubling, the history undergirding the majority’s reasoning is misleading and dangerous to the separation of church and state.Tragically, the religious right knows it has a friendly audience in the six conservative Catholic justices on the supreme court, who have been partners in shaking the foundations of fundamental rights. The justices’ new standard is whether a constitutional right is grounded in “history and tradition”, the latest byword for the bogus doctrine of “originalism”. So they need some history, and apparently any history will do.The legal end to reach a thunderous ruling justifies their debatable means. So the concept of “religious autonomy”, built on a foundation of misleading scholarship, “impact” litigation and, above all, false history, has become the method for restricting rights. Its logic of power rests on its illogic; its warping of the constitution depends on the distortion of history.Tossing aside established historySince the first religious free exercise case in 1878, the supreme court has held that the first amendment protects belief absolutely, but speech and conduct reflecting those beliefs can be regulated if the government’s interest is strong enough.According to the founders, the reason speech and conduct should be subject to the law is the potential for harm. For example, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously remarked, it is illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there are no flames. It is also illegal to cover up child sex abuse or to let a child die from medical neglect despite religious motives. This foundational no-harm doctrine used to apply to all Americans. But now, with its recent decision, the conservative supreme court majority has carved out a gaping exception to the no-harm doctrine for the extremist Christian right, tossing aside established history.For the court to reach its holding that an evangelical website designer has a constitutional right to engage in invidious discrimination against same-sex couples, the majority fraudulently inflated the value of Smith’s speech from expressive conduct (regulatable) to highly valued “pure speech” (untouchable).Two conservative amicus groups, the Becket Fund and the Catholic League, provided the court with the necessary tools to assemble this phony argument by concocting fraudulent histories on the freedom of religious speech.Both the Becket Fund and the Catholic League rely heavily on a 1990 article by the conservative law professor Michael W McConnell that cherry-picks history to make the argument that the constitution mandates religious exemptions from the law. No legitimate scholar outside the realm of the religious right takes McConnell’s arguments seriously – they were thoroughly debunked by Philip Hamburger, Ellis West and myself 20 years ago. As I wrote in 2004, “the power to act outside the law–was not part of the framers’ intent, the framing generation’s understanding, or the vast majority–and the best–of the supreme court’s free exercise jurisprudence.”Unlike what the Becket Fund and the Catholic League wish the justices to believe, the historical truth is that the founders believed that obedience to the rule of law was necessary for true liberty. And it is the true history repeatedly stated in the sermons of the leading clergy of the late 18th-century United States. The most influential of them all, president of Presbyterian College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), the Rev John Witherspoon, who trained more framers than any other educator –including the architect of the constitution, James Madison – stated that the “true notion of liberty is the prevalence of law and order, and the security of individuals”. According to Israel Evans, chaplain of the American army in the Revolution and a friend of George Washington, when a believer “counteract[s] the peace and good order of society” and harms others, “he would be punished not for the exercise of a virtuous principle of conscience, but for violating that universal law of rectitude and benevolence which was intended to prevent one man from injuring another.”The founders believed churches should have the “power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship or church government”, in the words of the congregational pastor, Rev Elisha Williams, rector of Yale University. Yet the ecclesiastical domain had to give way when others are hurt. As the founder Baptist Rev John Leland stated, the civil law is intended to constrain the actions that harm others and the public good: “[D]isturbers … ought to be punished.” Leland was close to Madison and Thomas Jefferson and influenced their views on separation of church and state. “Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny – the worst of despotism,” Leland wrote.In short, the founders definitively rejected the notion that religious believers have special rights to avoid the duly enacted laws that apply to everyone else. The inconvenience of this deeply rooted historical fact must be glossed over by the Becket Fund and the Catholic League, because acknowledging it would undermine their entire argument.Exaltation of religious speech through revisionismThe argument for placing religious speech on a pedestal above all other speech is especially suspect. The Becket Fund argues that the freedom of religious speech has historically occupied a “preferred position” in the “constitutional order”, over other forms of speech. By “preferred” they mean untouchable by law. They even concoct a new label for valuable speech: “core religious speech”. The Fund’s so-called “history” argues that the freedom of speech started with the freedom of religious speech for churches, which then devolved to freedom of speech for legislators, and then finally individuals. The history they tick off is in fact a history of the suppression of religious dissenters’ speech, which was often brutal. From that bloody history, they conclude that at the founding, “the framers elected to follow a broad view of freedom of speech”.Yet their history is just spin. First, it’s not supported in the history of the first amendment itself. As they have to admit, “neither the debates in Congress nor the ratification debates within the several states shed light on the exact scope of the right protected, much less to what extent religious speech was covered.” Second, the first amendment’s free speech and press clauses were ratified in an era of vibrant political speech aired by a vital press. It is clear the founders believed that the press and political speech were highly valued, not ranked below that of religious speech in some recently invented imaginary hierarchy.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionToday, the first amendment holds that political and religious speech are highly valued (though not one over the other), but at the time of the framing, the framers knew that when they limited the first amendment to the federal government, the state anti-blasphemy laws would stand. They placed political speech above dissenters’ religious speech. Thus, the first amendment was consistent with putting in jail those who criticized Christianity. Indeed, there were prosecutions for blasphemous and sacrilegious speech until Burstyn v Wilson in 1952, which held such a law unconstitutional. Of course, that is religious speech suppression. So much, in the light of the founders, for religious speech’s “preferred position” by history. What they really mean, based on their twisted interpretation, is that Christian speech has a preferred position.The Catholic League in fact leans into the fantastical concept of exalting a subset of religious speech over all other religious speech when it bizarrely attributes to the framers their acceptance of what they claim as Madison’s supposed view “that the governor of the universe supersedes any earthly authority, religious convictions were understood to command greater deference than mere personal opinions”.Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion elevates certain religious speech exactly as the Becket Fund and Catholic League suggest, and achieves this feat by intentionally misapplying free speech doctrine at its most basic. As a matter of law prior to this court, 303 Creative’s website design would have been expressive conduct. 303 Creative’s commercial speech is not the traditional, highly protected speech the court has recognized again and again: it’s not speech in a public park or on a public sidewalk or a parade. The speech is by a commercial business, whose product has expressive elements to it, which means it is expressive conduct, on which the public accommodation laws impose merely incidental burdens. However, the majority pulls a proverbial rabbit out of its hat by saying that the parties “stipulated” the commercial speech is “pure speech” – and so it must be. But that’s not how free speech cases are decided. The courts decide whether expression is traditionally highly protected, lesser valued speech, expressive conduct, or unprotected altogether. Hiding behind the parties’ stipulation is in derogation of the court’s duties and constitutional nonsense.Having transformed commercial expressive conduct into highly protected speech, Gorsuch nudged the law closer to McConnell’s debunked thesis of mandatory exemptions, which downplays any government interest. Gorsuch takes 12 pages to even acknowledge Colorado’s interest in public accommodations law, granting it one full paragraph and a quick tip of the hat: “The vital role public accommodations laws play in realizing the civil rights of all Americans.” Then he segues to suggesting that newer rights in the public accommodations laws haven’t been fully examined in the law. It’s easy to read between the lines: the majority is suggesting that LGBTQ+ discrimination isn’t nearly as bad as race discrimination; it’s a second-order interest. This is exactly what the Institute for Faith and Family argued with some dubious 14th amendment assertions. The disgraced John Eastman, writing for the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, would have moved all the way to McConnell’s conclusion, arguing no state interest could possibly overcome the exalted speech of the wedding website. The court got very close.Dangerous movesThese are dangerous moves by the court that unleash biased and destructive religious speech and conduct. The founders would not recognize the lawless world this court is building.Let’s be frank. The extreme right Christian groups supporting 303 Creative are still burned up about the Obergefell decision, which enshrined gay marriage as constitutional. They have manufactured a fictional guarantee to so-called “pure speech” and trivialized the anti-discrimination laws to make up for the fact they lost the war on LGBTQ+ marriage.The majority’s decision in 303 Creative is, in fact, an expression of the Christian right’s constitutional sour grapes. The supreme court majority has deconstructed the first amendment to fit their Bibles.
Marci A Hamilton is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania More

Oliver Anthony, the writer and singer of the mega-hit Rich Men North of Richmond, hit out at Republican candidates for president who discussed his song in the debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday.“It was funny seeing my song at that presidential debate. Because I wrote that song about those people, you know, so for them to have to sit there and listen to that, that cracks me up. It was funny kind of seeing the response to it,” the Virginian said in a statement on Friday.A stark lament over the plight of the working class, Rich Men North of Richmond is top of the Billboard Hot 100, the first song by an artist with no chart history to make No 1.The song has been championed by many on the political right as a populist anti-big-government hymn and criticized by some on the left for its attacks on welfare recipients.In Wisconsin on Wednesday, an excerpt was played at the start of the Republican debate. One Fox News host, Martha MacCallum, said Anthony’s “lyrics speak of alienation, of deep frustration with the state of government and of this country. Washington DC is about 100 miles north of Richmond.”On stage stood seven Republican current or former governors and congressmen and one venture capitalist.McCallum said: “Governor DeSantis, why is this song striking such a nerve in this country right now?”Ron DeSantis, the hard-right Florida governor running a distant second to Donald Trump, said: “Our country is in decline. This decline is not inevitable. It’s a choice. We need to send Joe Biden back to his basement and reverse American decline.”However, on Friday, Anthony released a 10-minute video, shot in the cab of a truck as heavy rain fell, in which he rejected that answer and denied that he was a conservative figure.“The one thing that has bothered me is seeing people wrap politics up in this. I’m disappointed to see it. Like, it’s aggravating seeing people on conservative news try to identify with me, like I’m one of them.”He added: “That song has nothing to do with Joe Biden. You know, it’s a lot bigger than Joe Biden. That song’s written about the people on that stage and a lot more, not just them.”It was hard, Anthony said, to “get a message out about your political ideology or your belief about the world in three minutes and some change. But I do hate to see that song being weaponized, like I see. I see the right trying to characterize me as one of their own. And I see the left trying to discredit me, I guess in retaliation. That’s got to stop.”He said the response to his song had crossed party lines and that he welcomed a diverse audience.“If you watch the response videos on YouTube, it’s not conservative people responding to the song. It’s not even necessarily Americans responding to the song. I don’t know that I’ve seen anything get such positive response from such a diverse group of people. And I think that terrifies the people that I sing about in that song. And they’ve done everything they can in the last two weeks to make me look like a fool. To spin my words. To try to stick me in a political bucket.”Anthony also answered criticism from leftwing sources about lyrics which refer to welfare recipients and depicts some as obese with poor diets.“I do need to address the left as well,” he said, “because they’re sending a message out that … Rich Men North of Richmond is an attack against the poor.”“I do understand there may be some people who misunderstood my words in Rich Men North of Richmond. But I’ve got to be clear that my message … references the inefficiencies of the government because of the politicians within it that are engulfed in bribes and extortion.“The words say that there’s, ‘People on the street with nothing to eat and the obese milking welfare.’ That references a news article I read earlier this summer, that adolescent kids in Richmond [Virginia] are missing meals … because their parents can’t afford to feed them and they’re not in school.“And meanwhile, I think like 30% or 40% of the food bought with welfare EBT money is … like, snack food and soda. I think 10% spent on soda. And I want to say like 20% or 30% spent on junk food.“And that’s not the fault of those people. Welfare only makes up a small percentage of our budget. You know, we can fuel a proxy war in a foreign land” – seemingly a reference to aid to Ukraine – “but we can’t take care of our own. That’s all the song’s trying to say. It’s just saying that the government takes people who are needy and dependent and makes them needy and dependent.” More

Donald Trump’s campaign sought to turn his public disgrace into a political weapon on Friday by raising funds and creating merchandise with his glowering prison mugshot.The mugshot, a historic first for a former US president, was made public after a 20-minute booking at the decrepit prison in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday, over charges that Trump ran a criminal racket to overturn the 2020 election in the state.The 77-year-old was fingerprinted and listed in jail records as inmate P01135809, with blue eyes and blond or strawberry hair. He gave his height as 6ft 3in (1.91m) and his weight as 215 pounds (97.5kg): some 24lb less than the White House doctor reported in 2018.On Friday, the remaining indicted co-conspirators, among them the former justice department official Jeffrey Clark, surrendered themselves at the jail. Legal wrangling over procedure to trial continued. One co-conspirator, the attorney Kenneth Chesebro, saw his request for a speedy trial granted, a date set in October. Lawyers for Trump said they did not want a quick trial.The Georgia indictment was Trump’s fourth but the first to produce a mugshot, a medium often associated with drug dealers or drunk drivers. In the picture, the one-time most powerful man in the world is seen scowling at the camera while wearing his customary blue suit, white shirt and red tie. The image flashed up on screens across the nation and ran on the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and newspapers around the world.But while millions saw a symbol of justice finally catching up with an unrepentant plotter, proof no one is above the law, millions saw a face of defiance, the indelible image a martyr targeted by his enemies.Released on $200,000 bail, Trump wasted no time in seeking advantage. On X, formerly known as Twitter, he posted the mugshot and the words “Election interference. Never surrender!” with a link to his website, which directs to a fundraising page.It was his first post since 8 January 2021, when Twitter suspended his account after the Capitol attack. His account was reinstated last November, shortly after Elon Musk bought the company, but Trump had stuck with his own Truth Social platform.The post came as Trump was flying back to New Jersey. He has 86.6 million followers on X, dwarfing his rivals in the 2024 race, and used the platform as a personal megaphone before and during his presidency. But it remained unclear whether the post was a one-off or not. Trump posted the same message on Truth Social, writing: “I love Truth Social. It is my home!!!”Trump’s 2024 campaign plastered the mugshot on flasks, mugs, T-shirts and other merchandise. An email advertised a T-shirt: “Breaking news: The mugshot is here.” It said: “This mugshot will forever go down in history as a symbol of America’s defiance of tyranny.”The mugshot appears to be a necessary cash cow, given how much money Trump’s campaign is spending on lawyers as he battles 91 criminal charges in four jurisdictions. It could also be a rallying point for his effort to win back the White House, perhaps his best hope of avoiding prison.His son, Donald Trump Jr, told reporters after the first Republican debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday: “It’s going to be the most iconic photo in the history of US politics, if not perhaps the history of the United States.”Asked by the Guardian if his father was afraid of going to prison, Don Jr replied: “We’ve gotten so used to this, we don’t even think about it. We’re joking around because we understand exactly what’s going on and hopefully the American people wake up to exactly what’s going on as well.“This is the stuff that the Democrat [sic] party and many in the media actually would be outraged about and are outraged about when it’s happening in Russia. When it happens in the United States, they’re strangely quiet and that’s very telling.”Far-right Republicans joined in the incendiary rhetoric. Sarah Palin, a former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee, told the rightwing Newsmax network: “Those who are conducting this travesty and creating this two-tier system of justice, I want to ask them what the heck, do you want us to be in civil war? Because that’s what’s going to happen.”She added: “We’re not going to keep putting up with this.”There is no evidence Joe Biden or Democrats have interfered in the process that led to Trump’s indictments, which are set to collide with next year’s election.In an another head-spinning week, Trump’s arraignment came a day after he skipped the debate, choosing instead an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that was posted on X.When the candidates were asked if they would support Trump even if he had a criminal conviction, four instantly raised their hands and two, Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, wavered before following suit. Chris Christie made an awkward gesture and only Asa Hutchinson kept his hand down.Trump dominates polling. Charlie Sykes, editor of the Bulwark website and a former conservative radio host, said: “If you would have told someone back in 2015 that a candidate for president had been indicted for obstruction, racketeering, false witnessing, had tried to stage a coup, and yet was still actually in the race, they would have thought you were out of your mind.“Think about how the moral standards of the political party have changed. Think about what’s happened to the party of law and order that basically says, ‘Yeah, Donald Trump may be a criminal, but he’s our criminal, and we’re OK with that.’”Republicans return to Milwaukee in less than a year for a convention that will anoint their candidate to take on Biden. Sykes said: “There’s a real possibility Donald Trump will, by the time he comes back to Milwaukee, be a convicted felon, and will be wearing an ankle bracelet when he accepts the Republican nomination.” More

Less than 24 hours after the first primary debate of the 2024 election season concluded, viewers of America’s cable news programs could be forgiven if they forgot the event had occurred at all.Rather than focusing on the post-debate coverage and analysis typically seen during past election cycles, CNN and MSNBC turned their attention on Thursday evening to Donald Trump’s arrest in Fulton county, Georgia, for charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. News of Trump’s surrender and the image of the first mugshot ever taken of a former US president also dominated the homepages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.The wall-to-wall news coverage of Trump’s arrest served as yet another example of the former president’s unique ability to suck up all available media oxygen, making it nearly impossible for his opponents’ message to break through to voters. That dynamic quickly drowned out coverage of the debate and probably mitigated, if not erased, any advantage Republican candidates might have gained from their performances.Rather than participating in the debate on Wednesday, Trump instead chose to sit down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The interview aired on X, formerly known as Twitter, and it had already garnered more than 250m views as of Friday morning.Even though Trump did not attend the debate, his absence and his looming arrest shaped much of the conversation and sparked its most illuminating moments. After candidates spent the first hour of the debate discussing issues like the climate crisis and the economy, the Fox News hosts Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum turned their attention to Trump – or “the elephant not in the room”, as Baier put it.Noting that Trump was expected to surrender to Fulton county officials the following day, the hosts asked the eight candidates onstage who would support Trump as the nominee even if he was convicted on criminal charges. All but two candidates – former New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson – unequivocally raised their hands.“Someone’s got to stop normalizing this conduct,” Christie said, after his hand wavered. “Whether or not you believe the criminal charges are right or wrong, the conduct is beneath the office of president of the United States.”The comment was met with boos from the debate audience, as the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy jumped in to defend Trump. Ramaswamy pledged to pardon Trump if he is elected president next year, and called on his opponents to do the same.The clash was a quintessential example of the Republican party’s ongoing Trump problem. Even when Trump himself does not make an appearance, his persona still dominates any conversation about the party’s future because of his enduring popularity with the Republican base and his ubiquitous presence in the headlines.“He is a very savvy politician in his ability to manipulate the media, garner earned media attention and suck all the oxygen out of the room,” the conservative commentator Tara Setmayer told the Guardian’s Politics Weekly America podcast. “None of the other candidates running against him have that ability, which is why Trump will be the nominee.”In more normal political times, perhaps Trump’s 91 criminal charges would become a liability in his quest to return to the White House. But the former president has transformed his legal woes into an asset, casting each indictment as an attack on his supporters, and the message appears to be resonating with Republicans.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAccording to a CBS News/YouGov poll released on Sunday, Trump now has his largest lead in the Republican primary, garnering the support of 62% of likely voters. Among those voters, 73% said they were supporting Trump at least partly to show support for the former president during his legal challenges. Another recent poll taken in the first voting state of Iowa found that Trump was not only ahead of his opponents by a wide margin, but his lead actually increased by five points after he was indicted in Georgia.Trump keenly understands this dynamic and has capitalized on it to further cultivate his persona as a fighter willing to go to battle for his supporters, enriching his campaign in the process. Hours after his mugshot was taken in Fulton county, Trump’s campaign team had put the image on T-shirts available to supporters for $34.With Trump’s trials expected to dominate much of the news coverage in 2024, this dynamic does not appear to be shifting anytime soon. That reality has left Trump’s opponents who participated in the debate this week squabbling over second place as Republicans rush to nominate a man who could soon be convicted.“The idea that he would make this a media spectacle, that he’s wearing these indictments and these arrests like a badge of valor is the world turned upside down. There is no low any more in the Republican party,” Setmayer said. “Donald Trump is a failed reality show host, and he understands how to entertain. And unfortunately in this day and age, that resonates with a large portion of our electorate.” More

On Wednesday night, Donald Trump won the Republican debate without showing up. One night later, he surrendered to law enforcement at the Fulton county, Georgia, jail. In the span of 24 hours, cameras captured the essence of the current presidential contest, namely the legal status of the prior occupant of the Oval Office. Whether Trump is a free man or a convict on election day 2024 will weigh heavily upon voters and the republic.At the debate, six of the eight contenders raised their hands when asked if they would back Trump if he were convicted. With the predictable exceptions of Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, the rest of the pack fell into line.Despite the fact that Trump was seemingly untroubled by January 6 rioters’ calls to hang Mike Pence from a makeshift gallows outside the US Capitol, the hapless vice-president declared his fealty. And if Pence declined to resist, then Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley could only be expected to acquiesce.Over the past eight years, the demarcation between the Republican rank and file and Trump’s core has disappeared. Each new indictment bolsters his grip on the Republican party. As a corollary, never-Trump Republicans are now independents and Democrats. Our politics convulses as the party of Lincoln vanishes.The scene outside the jail was controlled chaos. A cluster of Trump’s supporters descended upon the surrender site. His travails were theirs. By extension, they view the eventual judgments rendered in these cases as a verdict on them.Their taunt, “screw your feelings”, was always bravado. Yet the resentment is real. Perceived slights are a tremendous political motivator.Around 7.30pm, Trump entered the jail, one of the grimmest in the US, amid a phalanx of lawyers, Secret Service agents and state troopers. Within a half hour, he left the building. In between, the state of Georgia took his mugshot. For a brief moment, the system processed him as it might process a common criminal.But only for that moment and not exactly. Most criminal defendants do not fly into Atlanta via private jet or enter with the Secret Service in tow. Said differently, Trump is not the typical defendant.The cases brought by the special counsel Jack Smith; the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis; and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg are dramas in which US democracy is on trial too. How we perceive ourselves and how others view this country will never be the same.Regardless, the day’s events stripped away the veneer of untouchability that Trump had cultivated over decades. He is in legal jeopardy. With hindsight, the verdict in the first E Jean Carroll case, that Trump had sexually abused the writer and then defamed her, presaged what has since followed.By contrast, dignity as traditionally understood was never Trump’s strong suit. He was always tabloid fodder and preferred it that way. John Barron and New York Post headlines were his own inventions.For Trump and his minions, the coming election is more than a rematch between aging men. It is about revenge – against the deep state, against the justice department and the FBI, against local prosecutors, against the media. His is a bottomless pit of wrath.At the debate, Haley derided Trump as the most disliked politician in the US. She may have a point, but only barely. A recent poll pegs Trump’s unfavourability at 56%. For Joe Biden and Kamala Harris the numbers are 55% and 52%, respectively.The polls also show Trump performing better today than he did in 2020. Ron DeSantis fades. Biden’s lead is narrow and tenuous. His record is on the line. Inflation, immigration and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are all fair game.Likewise, Hunter Biden and his woes may return to bite his father. For whatever reason, the president will not distance himself from his wayward son. Inviting Hunter to a state dinner was not a one-off. Recently, the two families vacationed together at the Lake Tahoe home of Tom Steyer, the other billionaire who challenged Biden for the Democratic nomination. Love may actually be blind.For little more than a minute, Trump stood in the front of his jet and proclaimed himself not guilty. He then lumbered up the plane’s stairs while swaths of the country and the media waited for his mugshot to drop.He faces state charges, outside the purview of the president’s pardon power. Trump has reason to worry.His inmate number is P01135809. By 5 November 2024, those figures will be etched on the national psyche and splattered on campaign merchandise.
Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More

The reigning champion, and undisputed winner, from the first Republican debate of presidential hopefuls? Donald Trump. Even in his absence, he was the main spectacle.

That much was predictable. Although many tried to dance around him, every candidate had to address the “elephant not in the room”. That put Trump centre-stage, in the limelight — exactly where the 2024 Republican favourite wanted to be.

Without Trump at a podium, it made critiques of him seem unfair, or land more softly, because he wasn’t there to defend himself. At the same time, Trump’s no-show only made him loom transcendentally larger with the Maga (make America great again) crowd that will determine the party’s nominee.

All of this put Trump’s rivals in the same catch-22 that’s defined their seemingly futile campaigns: they can’t attack Trump because they’ll alienate the Republican base. But they can’t not attack Trump or he’ll cruise to the nomination untouched.

No one (as yet) has solved that puzzle. So nothing from the first debate disturbed the not-so-delicate status quo: this is Trump’s race to lose.

NBC poll on Iowans who believe last election was ‘stolen’.

Notable moments

While the debate did little to deflate Trump, it did have some elucidating moments. Candidates had to answer tough questions, from their opinion on a national abortion ban to Washington’s support for Ukraine.

Yet again, perhaps the most memorable question revolved around Trump. When asked whether they would back the ex-president if he were criminally convicted, all the candidates raised their hands, save former New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson.

“Someone’s got to stop normalising this conduct, OK?” Christie declared.

The response earned Christie boos, a testament to what the polling shows: the vast majority of Republican voters – nearly eight in ten – continue to view criminal allegations against Trump as politically motivated.

Trump’s power move

Trump skipping the debate was the ultimate power move. It was Trump positioning himself as the inevitable Republican nominee. It was him telling voters: you have no choice. This will be a coronation, not a primary.

That overture might rub some Republicans the wrong way. Plenty of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states like the illusion that they control the destiny of presidential nominations.

Read more:
Nikki Haley: the ‘new generation’ candidate trying to win the Republican nomination

But for an ex-president who’s emerged from four indictments not only unscathed, but with a roughly 35-percentage-point lead in the polls, such a message isn’t cheap talk.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis, the early darling of the donor class, has watched his chances of out-Trumping Trump die on the vine. Few even tried to land blows on him at the debate.

Meanwhile, other White House hopefuls, like South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, seem to be vying for a vice presidential nod.

Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old rookie politician with oratorical skills to burn, was the surprise focal point after his recent rise in the polls led to debate pile-ons. Yet his relentless defence of Trump, including his pledge to pardon him if elected, tees him up better for a cabinet post, or a 2028 run.

For an outlier like Christie, the Trump critic (who endorsed Trump in 2016), the boos he endured were a telltale sign: he’s out of step with the GOP base.

And then there’s former vice president Mike Pence. If it wasn’t clear before, the debate proved that he’s too Maga for moderates, and too moderate for Maga.

Risks ahead

Not turning up worked to Trump’s advantage in the first debate. Trump didn’t have to compete, and he still overshadowed the event.

One question, though, is whether Trump will be in fighting form whenever the field narrows, and the Republican party coalesces around an alternative choice (if that happens). Debates tend to sharpen candidates and make them battle-tested.

If Trump does eventually debate in the primaries, which (despite reports otherwise) he might be tempted to, the stakes will be higher. Could one stumble by Trump — or a viral moment where he’s on the short end of the stick — blunt his inexorable march to the nomination?

Downstream, Trump has also been warned that if he doesn’t debate, Joe Biden will have an easy excuse to say he won’t debate in the general election, either. And a debate with Biden is something that the Trump team will desperately want.

Trump blasted Biden in 2020 for running his campaign from his Delaware basement. Yet now it’s Trump who’s nowhere to be seen, except the interior of a Georgia courthouse.

As one analysis has observed, “gambling on finding strength in indictments instead of debates” poses risks. But for now, the Republican primaries remain a Trump lovefest.

Debates or no debates, Trump is the candidate to beat. More

Vivek Ramaswamy has described himself as an “outsider”, accusing rivals for the Republican presidential nomination of being “bought and paid for” by donors and special interests.But the 38-year-old Ohio-based venture capitalist, whose sharp-elbowed and angry display stood out in the first Republican debate this week, has his own close ties to influential figures from both sides of the political aisle.Prominent among such connections are Peter Thiel, the co-founder of tech giants PayPal and Palantir and a rightwing mega-donor, and Leonard Leo, the activist who has marshaled unprecedented sums in his push to stock federal courts with conservative judges.Ramaswamy is a Yale Law School friend of JD Vance, the author of the bestselling memoir Hillbilly Elegy who enjoyed success in finance before entering politics. At Yale, Vance and Ramaswamy attended what the New Yorker called an “intimate lunch seminar for select students” that was hosted by Thiel. Last year, backed by Thiel and espousing hard-right Trumpist views, Vance won a US Senate seat in Ohio.Thiel has since said he has stepped back from political donations. But he has backed Ramaswamy’s business career, supporting what the New Yorker called “a venture helping senior citizens access Medicare” and, last year, backing Strive Asset Management, a fund launched by Ramaswamy to attack environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies among corporate investors. Vance was also a backer.Ramaswamy’s primary vehicle to success has been Roivant, an investment company focused on the pharmaceuticals industry founded in 2014.The Roivant advisory board includes figures from both the Republican and Democratic establishments: Kathleen Sebelius, US health secretary under Barack Obama; Tom Daschle of South Dakota, formerly Democratic leader in the US Senate; and Olympia Snowe, formerly a Republican senator from Maine.Ramaswamy’s links to Leo – recently the recipient of a $1.6bn donation from the industrialist Barre Seid, believed to be the biggest ever such gift, but now reportedly the subject an investigation by the attorney general of Washington DC – are many.As reported by ProPublica and Documented, Ramaswamy has spoken at retreats staged by Teneo, a group Leo chairs and which aims to connect high-powered conservatives, to “crush liberal dominance” in American life.Other Teneo speakers have reportedly included Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor polling ahead of Ramaswamy in the Republican primary, and the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who trails Ramaswamy and clashed with him on stage in Milwaukee.ProPublica also linked Thiel to the genesis of the Teneo group. According to a document seen by the Guardian, Ramaswamy became a Teneo member in 2021.Elsewhere, Ramaswamy is a board member of the Philanthropy Roundtable, a group with ties to Leo, and a member of the Federalist Society, the Leo-driven group which works to stock the courts with conservatives.Ramaswamy has also spoken to and received an award from the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF), a group of Republican state treasurers.In June, in South Carolina, the Post and Courier newspaper reported that last year, before launching his presidential bid, Ramaswamy attempted “to leverage his [Republican] connections to gain access [for Strive] to lucrative contracts to manage pension funds … [with] total assets of $39.6bn”.Similar pushes were mounted in Missouri and Indiana, the paper said. Curtis Loftis, the South Carolina state treasurer, told the Post and Courier there was “nothing improper” about such approaches.Asked about Ramaswamy’s claims to be an outsider in light of his links to rightwing donors, activists and establishment figures, a campaign spokesperson told the Guardian: “Vivek has lived the American dream and has had tremendous success in business.“There’s a colossal difference between someone who has friendships and business relationships with wealthy individuals and politicians who change their policies and positions to please their Super Pac donors,” they added.In the Wisconsin debate, Ramaswamy flourished in the absence of Donald Trump, the former US president who faces 91 criminal charges but nonetheless leads Republican polling by huge margins.Amid speculation that Ramaswamy might end up Trump’s running mate, Reed Galen, a Republican operative turned co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, called Ramaswamy “a classic 2020s America tech bro bullshit artist … Trump for the 21st century”.Ramaswamy’s claim to be an outsider, Galen said, was part of his “fundamental understanding … that Maga [the pro-Trump Republican base] wants him to show that the rest of these people [in the primary] are politicians. He’s willing to be the showman … the outsider. Anti-establishment. ‘If anything is there, I dislike it because it’s there.’ You know, ‘I’m going to have fun with this. I’m not going to take it seriously because you’re a bunch of hacks and goons.’”But in another sense, regarding Ramaswamy’s ties to the likes of Leo and Thiel, Galen said: “I think that he’s an insider.“He walks into a room with Leonard Leo and says, ‘What do you need me to do?’ … And they’re like, ‘Here’s what we want you to do. Here’s what we need you to do.’ Right?“Do I think [Ramaswamy] cares about [issues like restricting] abortion? No, not particularly. I don’t think he has a firmly held belief on it. But if he thinks that it will help him, and in exchange for that Leonard Leo will throw a little chicken feed of the $1.6bn that old man gave him, to help him? Sure, what the hell?“He didn’t ever think he’d get this far. So now he’s just gonna push it as far as he can.”Ramaswamy, Galen said, was closely tied to a world of donors and non-profits in which Leo is “certainly at the center. And this movement only moves in one direction, and it’s toward the darkness. It’s towards authoritarianism. And it’s because it finds people like Ramaswamy. And the more that all these other candidates will now attack him, they will drive him further and further into the arms of those people.” More