US Politics

John Bolton chose not to brief Trump on Russia Havana syndrome suspicionFormer national security adviser tells podcast ‘we didn’t feel we would get support’ from president during Russia investigationDonald Trump’s third national security adviser, John Bolton, did not brief the president on suspicions Russia might be behind mysterious “Havana syndrome” attacks on US diplomats because he did not think Trump would support him.‘Havana syndrome’ not caused by foreign adversary, US intelligence saysRead more“Since our concern was that one of the perpetrators – maybe the perpetrator – was Russia,” Bolton said, “we didn’t feel we would get support from President Trump if we said, ‘We think the Russians are coming after American personnel.’”Bolton makes the startling admission in an interview for an episode of a podcast, The Sound: Mystery of Havana Syndrome, hosted by the former Guardian journalist Nicky Woolf and released on Monday.Bolton was national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, a period of intense scrutiny on Trump’s relations with Russia, primarily via special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.Mueller issued his report in April 2019. He did not prove collusion between Trump and Moscow in his 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton but the former FBI director did secure indictments of figures close to Trump and lay out extensive evidence of possible obstruction of justice.Trump angrily rejected allegations of wrongdoing and claimed to be the victim of a witch-hunt. But he also closely courted Vladimir Putin, even seeming, in Helsinki in July 2018, to side with the Russian president against his own intelligence agencies.“Havana syndrome” refers to the investigation of more than 1,000 “anomalous health incidents” involving diplomats, spies and other US government employees around the world. The first cases emerged in 2016.Symptoms have included brain injuries, hearing loss, vertigo and unusual auditory sensations. Speculation about directed energy weapons has persisted, though earlier this month an official report said “available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents”.Havana syndrome got its name because, as Bolton told The Sound, “the first reports came from Cuba [so] it would not be unreasonable to say the Cubans were doing it”.But, he said, “it becomes counterintuitive pretty quickly. If they wanted to keep the American embassy open, you wouldn’t attack it. That tended to show that it was some other government. And a government with more capabilities than we thought the Cubans had.”The Trump administration cracked down on Cuba anyway, returning it to the “state sponsor of terror” list, ending a diplomatic thaw begun by Barack Obama. Bolton, a famous rightwing foreign policy hawk, told The Sound he favoured taking that step anyway, regardless of the origin of the Havana syndrome attacks.He also said he and other national security staffers “felt that because it was possible – not certain, but possible – this emanated from a hostile foreign power and we had our ideas who that might be … we thought more needed to be done to consider that possibility and either find evidence to rule it in or rule it out”.If the attack theory was real, Bolton said, there was “no shortage of evidence that would point to Russia as … at least the top suspect”.Nonetheless, he said, he decided not to take that suspicion to Trump.“Who knows what he would’ve said,” Bolton said of his decision not to brief Trump on his suspicions about Russia and Havana syndrome.“He might’ve said, ‘Do nothing at all.’ I didn’t want to chance that, because I did feel it was serious.”Trump fired Bolton in September 2019. The following year, Bolton released a book, The Room Where It Happened, in which he was highly critical of his former boss. Trump sought to prevent publication. Bolton has said he could run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 if it is a way to stop Trump, who he has called “poison” to the Republican party.Speaking to The Sound, Bolton suggested the decision not to brief Trump about suspicions about Russia damaged attempts to investigate the Havana syndrome mystery.“When you don’t have the ability to bring the hammer down and say, ‘Find the answer out,’ … it’s much easier for the bureaucracy to resist.”TopicsDonald TrumpJohn BoltonTrump administrationTrump-Russia investigationUS politicsUS national securityUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

Tucker Carlson firestorm over Trump texts threatens to engulf Fox News The network is facing a $1.6bn false-claims lawsuit – and its top star’s private texts about the ex-president are causing anguishTucker Carlson was once seen as untouchable. Now the most popular TV host on American cable news is at the center of a firestorm threatening to engulf Fox News and also anger Donald Trump, whose conspiracy theory-laden political cause he has long championed and who his audience loves.Court filings attached to the $1.6bn Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit accuse Fox News of allowing its stars to broadcast false accusations about rigged voting machines in the 2020 presidential election.Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape can be used in civil rape trial, judge rulesRead moreThe documents contained numerous emails detailing the private views and concerns of senior Fox management and its stars, which often seemed at odds with what they were publicly broadcasting to their audience.While anchors Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo have been singled out for pushing false claims of a fraudulent election, the fallout has landed primarily on Carlson.In group chats obtained by Dominion, the network’s biggest names – Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity – appeared to doubt claims of election fraud that were featured prominently on the network. At the same time, Fox owner Rupert Murdoch said in a court deposition that anyone who knowingly allowed lies to be broadcast “should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of”.So far, Fox is standing by its stars. On Thursday, Lachlan Murdoch, Murdoch’s eldest son, heir apparent and executive chairman and chief executive of Fox Corporation, voiced support for management, its roster of stars and backed Fox New’s editorial standards.“A news organization has an obligation – and it is an obligation – to report news fulsomely, wholesomely and without fear or favor. That’s what Fox News has always done and that’s what Fox News will always do,” he said.That might not wash with many observers and media critics. But likely of equal concern, especially for Carlson, are some of the private opinions voiced about Trump. The Dominion lawsuit revealed a text from Carlson declaring: “I hate him passionately.”Nor is that the only political fight Carlson became mired in last week. Carlson was directly criticized by the White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates for describing the January 6 rioters as “orderly and meek … sightseers” as he began broadcasting footage from the insurrection handed to him by Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy.Ironically, news of Carlson’s antipathy for Trump broke around the same time the ex-president was praising Carlson as doing a “great job” in his presentation of Capitol security video.Many people – including some Republicans – reacted with outrage to Carlson’s broadcasts, with chimed with a broader far-right push in the US to recast the January 6 attack on the Capitol as an overly enthusiastic demonstration and the hundreds of people jailed for it as political prisoners.The White House, Bates said, “agrees with the chief of the Capitol police and the wide range of bipartisan lawmakers who have condemned this false depiction of the unprecedented, violent attack on our constitution and the rule of law – which cost police officers their lives.”The Guardian contacted Fox for comment but received no reply.Carlson, for his part, has been unapologetic. He claimed the clips offered “conclusive” evidence that Democrats and the select committee that organized last year’s January 6 hearings misinformed the public about what had taken place.Some experts see the current crises at the network as serious, as it seeks to keep a Trump-loving audience glued to its screens – no matter the cost, and no matter what its executives privately think.“They feel that they have to appease a certain audience they’ve trained to expect a certain kind of information flow. And at the same they see that if you take it too far, you risk serious legal and financial liability – to say nothing of embarrassment that comes when internal communications are exposed,” said Bill Grueskin, a faculty professor at Columbia Journalism School.The news-opinion formula worked for Fox News through the Trump presidency, but in the aftermath of Trump’s election fraud claims and the Capitol riot, it is starting to show signs of strain, Grueskin said.If Fox managers and anchors doubted Trump’s election fraud claims and went along with them to maintain ratings dominance, particularly over other emerging rightwing outlets, their anxieties were confirmed when Fox News viewers fled after it declared Arizona for Joe Biden.“The Murdochs think about this almost exclusively in terms of ratings, audience and money,” said Grueskin. “If they were concerned about Tucker Carlson’s truthfulness, they might have done something about this months or years ago.”And they might be right. After Dominion filed internal Fox News communications last month viewership rose by 2.4%, compared to total viewership for the first full week of February.More so, Carlson likes controversy. He remains hugely powerful, and may be beyond the reach or will of the organization to rein in. He has survived controversies over racist comments and his embracing of tenets of white nationalism.Fox News primetime anchors, particularly Carlson and Hannity, exert so much power in that organization that even the Murdochs have to dance around it, Grueskin said.“It goes beyond Tucker Carlson,” he says. “Rupert Murdoch may be the smartest media person in the world, but you can’t fix this problem they’ve created for themselves.”TopicsFox NewsDonald TrumpUS politicsUS elections 2024US elections 2020newsReuse this content More

Republican John Kennedy takes aim at Biden over social security fundingSenator accuses president of ‘demagoguing’ issue to fund and protect program, along with Medicare, from proposals to cutThe Republican senator John Kennedy accused Joe Biden of “demagoguing” the issue of how to fund social security and Medicare and protecting the two programs from Republican proposals to cut them, calling it a “very immature thing to do”. McCarthy: January 6 tapes to be ‘slowly’ rolled out to networks besides Fox NewsRead moreSpeaking to Fox News Sunday, Kennedy took aim at Biden for mentioning in his State of the Union address last month that some Republicans have proposed to “sunset” social security and Medicare as part of attempts to balance the federal budget.“The problem is that President Biden in his State of the Union Address decided to demagogue the issue,” the Louisiana senator said. “We all saw it.“He basically said, ‘If you talk about social security or Medicare, I’m going to call you a mean, bad person.’ And that just took the issue off the table when the president decided to demagogue it … You can only be young once, but you can always be immature, and I thought it was a very immature thing to do.”In his speech to Congress, Biden, 80, drew boos from some Republicans when he said some wanted social security and Medicare to “sunset”, meaning face periodic re-authorization without which they would close.“Anybody who doubts it, contact my office, I’ll give you a copy of the proposal,” the president said.The far-right Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene yelled: “Liar!”Biden was widely praised for using the moment to steer Republicans into cheering the idea of social spending.“As we all apparently agree,” he said, “social security and Medicare are apparently off the books now … We’ve got unanimity!” More

George Santos: Republican fabulist praises ‘genuine’ actors in Oscars picksNew Yorker with mostly made-up CV and multiple investigations calls nominee Angela Bassett ‘Meryl Streep, the Black version’Asked for his Oscars predictions, the Republican congressman and fabulist George Santos said he liked actors who were “genuine”.“I have my favorite actors,” said the New Yorker, who has been shown to have made up most of his résumé and whose behaviour before and after entering politics is the subject of multiple investigations.Oscars 2023: final predictions, timetable and how to watchRead more“And then I have the actors I think are charismatic. JLo, The Rock. Melissa McCarthy. They’re genuine.”None of them were however nominated for the Academy Awards set to be handed out in Hollywood on Sunday night.Santos has admitted “embellishing” a résumé shown to include false claims about his family, educational and professional background, fueling questions about his very identity, given activities under another name, Anthony Devolder.He has repeatedly said he has done nothing illegal, even as his campaign finances, an allegation of sexual harassment and multiple claims of financial wrongdoing are investigated at local, state, federal, congressional and international levels.He has rebuffed calls to resign from constituents in Queens and Long Island as well as Democrats in Congress and his fellow New York Republicans.He withdrew from committee assignments but retains the support of Republican leaders, after backing Kevin McCarthy through 15 votes for House speaker, a role the Californian must play with a narrow majority, prey to rightwing rebellion.Santos discussed the Oscars and his film tastes with Matthew Foldi, a reporter who has also interviewed him for the Spectator, in an interview published on Sunday on Pirate Wires, a site “focused on the intersection of technology, politics, and culture”.The discussion started with “the Slap”, the moment last year when Will Smith left the Oscars audience to hit the host, Chris Rock, over a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith, Smith’s wife.“Quite frankly, it was fucking stupid,” Santos said. “Chris Rock is a genius.”Santos said he would not watch the Oscars this year, because “they won’t really put box [office] sellers there” and he did not want to see a celebration of “fancy people” and “elitists” such as Quentin Tarantino and James Cameron.Those two directors and Steven Spielberg (who has three nominees for The Fabelmans to one for Cameron’s Avatar: The Way of Water) had “fallen to the woke”, Santos said.Santos said he liked comedy and horror films, adding: “Let’s be honest, Saw was a fucking great horror movie. But the Oscars don’t have a horror category. Resident Evil, great cinematics. Milla Jovovich is arguably one of my favorite actresses of all time. It’s her, Morgan Freeman, Angela Bassett and Gerard Butler.”Bassett is nominated this year for best supporting actress, for Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. Santos said she should be up for best actress, because: “I’m not trying to be racist, but she’s Meryl Streep, the Black version. She’s just as good. She’s fantastic.”The congressman lamented the academy’s relative neglect of Leonardo DiCaprio (who won best actor for The Revenant in 2016) but criticised Tom Cruise, producer and star of Top Gun: Maverick, a best picture nominee this year.“Tom Cruise has given me enough evidence of what he thinks of America to make me not like him,” Santos said, going on to criticise the actor Jane Fonda in similar terms, for “decid[ing] to make her entire life political”.The professional politician professed not to know the “political beliefs” of actors including Bassett, Freeman, Denzel Washington and Mel Gibson, “because they don’t share them. And you know why that is? Because we look to them for entertainment. I appreciate these people so much because they’re not activists.”Of Gibson, Foldi wrote: “We do know his views on Jews … and they are not favorable.”Santos’s claim to be Jewish has been debunked. Openly gay, he was once married to a woman. Accusing Hollywood of caving to Chinese censors – although “as a good old capitalist, I don’t blame them” – he told Foldi: “Woke wants everything gay, and pro-China-beholden-Hollywood can’t have that.“To me, it becomes a cannibalistic event that I would actually enjoy watching. That’s a movie I would watch. Woke Hollywood takes on Chinese-influenced Hollywood.”Santos also lamented the declining fortunes of other favourites including Steven Seagal, the pro-Putin action star who Santos said once shone in “hyper-action police movies” but was out of favour because “instead of giving the police a platform, we just want to defund them and burn them to the ground”.In comedy, Santos said, “You’re not going to see another Adam Sandler or Vince Vaughn or Chris Rock or Kevin Hart. Well, Kevin Hart survives because – I guess he gets a pass because he’s a little Black guy. People aren’t gonna want to make his life miserable.”Towards the end of the interview, Foldi said, the man whose performance as a politician has captured the national spotlight “turned reflective”.“I’m very, very close-minded about actors these days,” Santos said. “Because the more I learn about your non-performative career, the less interested I am in you.”A spokesperson for Santos did not immediately reply to a request for comment.TopicsGeorge SantosOscarsOscars 2023Awards and prizesUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesReuse this content More

Trump should quit 2024 race if indicted in New York, Republican rival saysEx-Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson: man facing charge over porn star payment should ‘respect institution of the presidency’Donald Trump should quit the race for the Republican nomination in 2024 if he is indicted in New York over a hush money payment to a porn star during his victorious run in 2016, a prospective rival said.Is Fox News finally falling out of love with Trump? It’s complicatedRead more“It doesn’t mean that he’s guilty of it or he should be charged,” said Asa Hutchinson, a former governor of Arkansas. “But it’s just such a distraction that would be unnecessary for somebody who’s seeking the highest office in the land.”Hutchinson has not declared a run. Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor, remains Trump’s only declared opponent from the Republican mainstream. The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, is Trump’s only serious challenger in polling.Like other relative moderates, Hutchinson is a vanishingly small presence in polls regarding the nascent field.He told USA Today: “When you’re looking at Trump, it’s going to be a circus.”Widespread reporting has said an indictment is expected soon in the hush money case, which involves the payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels, an adult film maker and actor who says she had an affair with Trump in 2006.Trump denies the claim, often abusing Daniels in misogynistic terms. But the man Trump directed to pay Daniels, his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, is due to testify before a grand jury on Monday.Trump has also been invited to testify, a sign an indictment is near. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is reported to be preparing to criminally charge Trump for false accounting business records with an intent to defraud, in relation to New York election law.Mark Pomerantz, a prosecutor who quit Bragg’s team, recently called the Daniels payment a “zombie case” that would not die.But David Shapiro, a former FBI agent who now lectures at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the Associated Press it could be “especially difficult” for Bragg to prove intent and knowledge of wrongdoing.Trump, Shapiro said, is “loud, he’s brash, so proving that he had specific intent to fraud, one is almost left with the idea that, ‘Well, if he has that specific intent of fraud, he has it all of the time, because that’s his personality.’”Trump claims Bragg is politically motivated, as a Democrat, and racist because he is Black.At CPAC earlier this month, the former president told reporters he “won’t even think about leaving” the race, as an indictment would “probably … enhance my numbers”.Optimistically, Hutchinson told USA Today the man who left office twice impeached, the second time for inciting a deadly attack on Congress in an attempt to stay in power, should withdraw “out of respect for the institution of the presidency of the United States.“And that’s a distraction [and it] is difficult to run for the highest office in the land under those circumstances.Mike Pence: Donald Trump was wrong, history will hold him accountableRead more“I know he’s going to say [the charges are] politically motivated and all of those things, but the fact is, there’s just a lot of turmoil out there with the number of investigations going on.”Trump also faces federal investigation of his election subversion attempts, incitement of the January 6 attack and retention of classified records. A state investigation of his election subversion in Georgia is well advanced.In New York, his business faces a civil fraud suit and his chief financial officer was sentenced on tax charges in January. Trump also faces trial in a defamation suit from a writer who says he raped her.Trump denies all wrongdoing, claiming witch hunts by his political enemies.On Sunday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Kevin Cramer, a Republican senator from North Dakota, was asked if Trump should step aside if he is indicted in “Manhattan or Atlanta or Washington”.“Donald Trump’s not going to take advice from the party or from me,” Cramer said.“But I think what will happen is, if he’s indicted, that becomes one of the factors in whether he wins primaries or not. The other factor is who else is in the race and who can make the best case.”DeSantis, Cramer said, “has certainly earned the right to be at the head of the class, not just through his political rhetoric but through his successful governing of a very large state.“We’ve seen him out on the stump a little more now doing the things that potential presidential candidates do. I think it will help that debate along. The challenge becomes if there are too many people in the race.”Polling has shown how a split field could hand Trump the nomination without a majority, as happened in 2016.Cramer said: “Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, certainly my friend Tim Scott would all be good candidates who understand the Trump doctrine but have a demeanor that’s probably more suitable to the swing voter.“And at the end of the day, what’s most important for primary voters to think about is not just who they love the most but who can win for the country and who can win for the party. Because we’re in desperate need of some new leadership.”TopicsUS elections 2024Donald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsArkansasNew YorknewsReuse this content More

Colorado Republicans pick election denier as ‘wartime’ state party leaderDave Williams backs Trump voter fraud lie and tried to insert ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ anti-Biden meme into his name on ballotThe Colorado Republican party on Saturday selected as its new chair a former state representative and committed election denier who promised to be a “wartime” leader.The election-denying Republicans who aided Trump’s ‘big lie’ and got promotedRead moreSeveral other state Republican parties have recently elected far-right figures and election conspiracy theorists to top posts.The move in Colorado comes with the party on the brink of irrelevance in a state moving swiftly left.Dave Williams, who unsuccessfully tried to insert the anti-Biden meme “Let’s Go Brandon” into his name on the Republican primary ballot last year and backs Donald Trump’s lie that he won the 2020 election, was selected by the state executive committee from a seven-person field.Williams crossed the required 50% threshold on the third ballot after being endorsed by the indicted former Mesa county clerk Tina Peters, who failed to pass 10%. Peters faces seven felony charges for illegally accessing voting machines. She has denied the allegations while becoming a prominent figure in the election conspiracy movement.A three-term state representative from Colorado Springs, Williams challenged Doug Lamborn in the Republican congressional primary last year. The Colorado secretary of state rejected his effort to include a popular conservative phrase denigrating Joe Biden on the ballot.In a speech to nearly 400 hardcore activists and party leaders on Saturday, Williams reprised a key theme from his campaign: that poor performance in Colorado is simply due to not fighting hard enough, not any disconnect with voters.“Our party doesn’t have a brand problem,” Williams said. “Our party has a problem with feckless leaders … We need a wartime leader.”Election deniers have won state party chair positions in Idaho, Kansas and Michigan.In Colorado, Republicans lost every statewide election last year by double digits and are down to their lowest share of the state legislature in history. They have not won a major statewide race since 2014 and lag well behind Democrats and unaffiliated voters in registration.Like six of the seven candidates who ran for chair, Williams advocated trying to overturn a ballot measure that requires the party to allow unaffiliated voters to take part in its primary. All of the candidates except Kevin McCarney, a former Mesa county party chairman, expressed skepticism that Biden won the 2020 election.Election denier Kristina Karamo chosen to lead Michigan Republican partyRead moreWilliams’s main rival was Erik Aadland, a combat veteran and political novice who ran an unsuccessful race for a congressional swing seat in the Denver suburbs last year.Aadland has also questioned the 2020 election results but this time advocated for discussing elections in less aggressive language, basing his speech on Saturday around the theme of how “love trumps hate”.But Aadland also spoke in combative terms about how the party should move forward after Williams’s selection.“We are besought by a radical left that wants to destroy this country, and we need to come together and win elections,” Aadland said.TopicsColoradoRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

‘Hard to ignore Julie Su’: Biden’s labor secretary pick fights for confirmationSupporters fear Su, the deputy labor secretary, might have a hard time getting the needed Senate votes as some business groups oppose her nominationJulie Su has come a long way since she first made headlines in 1995 when she, then just 26 years old, was lead lawyer for 72 Thai workers who were essentially kept in slavery, toiling 18 hours a day at a sweatshop just outside Los Angeles.Last week Joe Biden nominated Su to be secretary of labor, the government’s top labor position, a move that many labor, immigrant and women’s groups vigorously cheered, while a few business groups – but not many – opposed the nomination. Now some supporters fear that she might have a hard time mustering the needed votes in the Senate to be confirmed.Starbucks fired a union organizer. New York City got him rehiredRead moreSu, the 54-year-old daughter of immigrants, has served as deputy labor secretary since 2021, having been narrowly confirmed 50 to 47. “I’m a huge fan,” said Liz Schuler, president of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s main labor federation. “I can’t imagine someone more prepared. She’s been working hand in glove with Marty Walsh,” the current labor secretary, who is leaving to head the National Hockey League Players’ Association.“She has the expertise,” Shuler added. “She’s a hard worker. She’s creative. We know that she will defend workers, especially the most vulnerable. This pick is a home run.”When Biden nominated her, Su explained “my mom came to the United States on a cargo ship” from China because she couldn’t afford a passenger ticket. Born in Madison and growing up outside Los Angeles, Su went to Stanford and Harvard Law School, and then became a lawyer for an LA-based advocacy group Asian Americans Advancing Justice.“At Harvard, we were taught to think like lawyers, but we did not learn to think like human beings,” Su often says. In 2001, Su, who is fluent in Mandarin and Spanish, won a MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant for her innovative work as a workers’ rights advocate.Immediately before becoming deputy secretary, she headed California’s labor and workforce development agency under Governor Gavin Newsom, and before that she oversaw California’s labor enforcement under Newsom’s predecessor Jerry Brown. She was known for aggressively cracking down on restaurants, garment factories and car washes that cheated workers out of wages. She also went after trucking companies that improperly classified their drivers as independent contractors in part to deny them minimum wage and overtime pay protections.Kent Wong, director of the UCLA Labor Center, said: “She did extraordinary work in reaching out to unions and community partners, in strengthening enforcement of wage laws and in really identifying the pernicious problem faced by so many low-wage workers of color who were routinely becoming victims of wage theft.”As California’s top labor official, Su expanded apprenticeship programs to train workers without college degrees and helped run the business/labor Future of Work Commission. That panel proposed ideas to help the workforce of the future, such as creating a “California Job Quality Index” to define high-quality jobs and help workers know who are good employers offering good benefits.When Su was under consideration to be deputy secretary of labor, Allen Zaremberg, president of the California chamber of commerce, praised her “professionalism” and said: “Julie Su has always been open to the views of employers and is willing to listen to the concerns of the business community.”So far the US Chamber of Commerce and most other business groups have not taken a position on Su’s nomination. But the International Franchise Association was quick to oppose her.“Deputy Secretary Su has been consistently hostile to small businesses throughout her career,” said Michael Layman, the franchise association’s senior vice-president of government relations. He faulted her for supporting California law AB5, which made it harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, a law that upset Uber and Lyft.Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Labor Federation, said she had long been impressed with how Su maintained good communications and relations with business. “She brought a perspective that labor law enforcement isn’t just good for workers, it’s also good for high-road businesses that are doing things right.”In 2017, when Su was California’s labor commissioner, she told me in an interview: “I passionately believe that our enforcement is good for employers. The legitimate businesses that are complying with the law are frustrated with the bad guys that aren’t complying.”Su was widely criticized over the billions of dollars that California’s unemployment insurance paid out due to fraud during the pandemic. But Su’s defenders noted that other states also experienced plenty of such fraud, that California’s unemployment insurance system was a mess long before Julie Su and that the nationwide rush to keep the pandemic-induced unemployed from going hungry made unemployment screening less rigorous than usual.The Franchise Association said that “based on her record, she does not deserve a promotion from a largely operations role to the [department’s] principal policymaker”. It urged the Senate to reject her just as it rejected David Weil, Biden’s nominee to head the labor department’s wage and hour division.Weil, who headed that division under President Barack Obama, was voted down 53 to 47. Business groups lobbied hard against Weil because he had pushed to stop gig companies, like Uber and Lyft, from what he said was improperly classifying their drivers as independent contractors.“From my own experience, I know what a razor’s edge the Senate is right now,” Weil said in an interview. “It’s all about two senators’ willingness to support her,” in a reference to Joe Manchin and Kysten Sinema, senators who were elected as Democrats but have voted with Republicans against progressive actions.Weil said Su would have a lot to do as labor secretary, although if the Senate fails to confirm her, she would remain as acting secretary of labor. “There are two or three major rules that have to be finalized,” Weil said, “and that gets harder and harder as you get closer to an election.”He mentioned rules to make it harder to misclassify workers as independent contractors and to increase the threshold, currently $35,500, below which employees would have to be paid overtime if they work over 40 hours a week.Erica Smiley, executive director of Jobs with Justice, a labor rights group, praised Su for being innovative. “She’s been on the cutting edge of trying new stuff,” Smiley said. “She has an appetite for experimenting with policies that will benefit everyday people.”Normally the National Labor Relations Board – which is independent from the labor department – handles cases in which companies are accused of illegally shutting stores or operations in retaliation for unionization efforts. Pointing to Amy’s Kitchen’s decision and close its food prep operation in San Jose and lay off 331 workers as that facility faced a union drive, Smiley suggested that Su have the labor department provide emergency assistance to workers who lose jobs in such situations, just as other federal agencies provide disaster relief. She urged Su to speak out against companies like Starbucks that she said were engaged in aggressive union-busting.Biden and Congress have enacted three far-reaching laws that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs – on infrastructure, semiconductor investment and transitioning to clean energy. Many worker advocates are looking to Su to use her sway as secretary to make sure the bulk of those new jobs are good, middle-class jobs, and many hope they’re unionized jobs, too.One of Su’s biggest champions is Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants and someone Senator Bernie Sanders urged Biden to nominate as labor secretary. Right after Su was nominated, Nelson tweeted: “Fantastic news for the country.”“I was very clear from the very beginning that we already had someone eminently qualified for this position,” Nelson said. “She’s way more qualified for this job than I would be, depending on what you think the job should be, in terms of understanding policy and how to use it as a tool to help average Americans. She wants to be a strong adviser to a president who wants to be the most pro-worker president ever.“This is not about one person filling a position,” Nelson added. “It’s about all of us working together to lift standards for the American people. I know that she will be fighting the good fight from the inside, and I’ll be fighting the good fight from the outside.”Some worker advocates voiced concern that Su is not a White House insider the way Walsh was and the way former labor secretary Tom Perez was under Obama. That could make it harder for Su to get the White House’s and Office of Management and Budget’s blessing to finalize important regulations.But the AFL-CIO’s Shuler voiced confidence: “She’s very persuasive, relentless and persistent. It’s hard to ignore Julie Su.”TopicsBiden administrationUS politicsUS unionsfeaturesReuse this content More

A crime bill was supposed to fix Washington DC’s problems. Instead, it polarized a cityThe new code revised 120-year-old criminal laws, but the effort was stymied by Joe Biden and an unlikely alliance of Republicans and DemocratsIn Washington DC, the law prohibits the playing of bandy and “shindy” in the streets, the arson of one’s own steamboat and potentially even being a “common scold” – a common law offense levied against those who quarreled with their neighbors.Aware of the need to clean up this 120-year-old criminal code, lawyers in America’s capital city have spent more than a decade and a half going through the law books in a modernization campaign described by those involved as long overdue, only to see the effort stymied this week at the hands of Joe Biden and an unlikely alliance of Republicans and Democrats.“Many residents are worried about taking their kids to school or going to the grocery store. But rather than attempt to fix this problem, the DC city council wants to go even easier on criminals,” Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy said in February, when the chamber’s lawmakers approved a resolution blocking the city council’s passage of the new code.Weeks later, Biden surprised his allies by announcing he would sign the House bill, and last Wednesday, the Senate passed it overwhelmingly – even though the president and many Democratic lawmakers support making Washington DC, the country’s only federal district, a full-fledged state.That Republicans would meddle in Washington DC’s politics is no surprise: they have few friends among the leadership of the overwhelmingly Democratic city. But for Democrats, their willingness to go along with the GOP effort is a sign of just how nervous the party has become to accusations of being weak of crime, which played a role in their loss of the House in last November’s elections. Residents’ frustrations with violence are also seen as a reason why Democrat Lori Lightfoot failed in her bid for a second term as mayor of Chicago.No city in America has political dynamics quite like Washington’s, where Congress has the power to overturn the city council’s will – which it did, for the first time in 30 years, over what local officials say was merely an update that would bring its criminal code in line with national standards.“We are an easy mark,” said Charles Allen, a city councilman who chaired its judiciary committee as the body was considering the revisions. “We don’t have representation in Congress, we have no senators out there that are arguing for us. We don’t have any full members of Congress in the House.”Sandwiched between Virginia and Maryland, Washington DC’s population of nearly 700,000 is greater than Vermont or Wyoming, but unlike those two states, the capital city’s only representation in Congress is a House delegate who can’t cast votes. The city government officially backs Washington DC becoming America’s 51st state, which Republicans universally oppose.In 2006, the council started reviewing the city’s criminal laws, which date back to 1901, and sought out the thoughts of the public defenders office, local prosecutors and criminal justice reform advocates across the city. The outcome of the 16-year process was a new code that removed mandatory minimum sentences for nearly all crimes, aligned sentences with what judges were actually handing down, added new offenses and raised the potential penalties for others, while also stripping out common law penalties that lingered in the turn-of-the-century document.But after the council unanimously passed the revised code last November, the city’s Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser announced she would veto it, citing its reduction in maximum sentences for gun offenses, among other issues. Republicans pounced after the council overrode her veto in January, and the following month, Biden unexpectedly signed on to the GOP effort.“I support DC statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes DC council put forward over the mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,” the Democratic president tweeted.Although police department data indicates overall crime in the city fell by about 4% last year, carjackings have jumped dramatically since the pandemic. Under the current code, armed carjackers could face jail sentences of between 15 and 40 years, but the new code sets the highest penalty at 24 years, in line with what judges were actually giving defendants and comparable to similar penalties nationwide, said Jinwoo Park, executive director of the DC Criminal Code Reform Commission.“I do think this has been completely inaccurately and unfairly painted as some kind of bizarrely radical bill, when really it’s just not the case when you compare it to the norms across the country,” Park said.Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences don’t act as deterrents for criminals. And for Washington’s current batch of carjackers, the code’s revisions would not have made much difference: it was only supposed to come into effect in 2025.“Every crime people are talking about, from yesterday to today to tomorrow, happens under our current criminal code,” said Allen.There’s little evidence that message was received by Congress, particularly not by Republicans, who cast the code revision as consequence of left-wing government run amok – even though they held no hearings on the code before voting to overturn it.“It seems to me that DC is trying to compete with other liberal-led cities to see just how woke they can be. So, just imagine if Congress didn’t have this authority and the DC council was left to its own devices, and this dangerous bill would’ve become law,” said Bill Hagerty, Tennessee’s Republican senator, after almost all the chamber’s Republicans and most Democrats voted for the disapproval resolution.Yet the new code doesn’t address progressive concerns such as mass incarceration or racial equity, which Park said weren’t included in the commission’s mandate.“There’s an enormous amount of compromise built into the bill,” said Patrice Sulton, executive director of the DC Justice Lab, which advocates for reforms of the city’s system of crime and punishment.Local leaders scrambled to react to Congress’s renewed meddling in the city’s affairs, with city council president Phil Mendelson withdrawing the revised code from the legislature’s consideration, and Bowser proposing another round of revisions to the code.“What’s important for this issue is to try to put Democrats in the light of being soft on crime,” Mendelson said as he announced his ill-fated attempt to stop the Senate from blocking the code. “But citizens don’t understand that because [of] the way this has been demagogued, and that’s the challenge we have to overcome.”The GOP has signaled it’s not done yet: House Republicans now want to override a city council bill that would change, among other procedures, how the police department uses force.While he believes there’s still momentum for reform in many cities nationwide, Nick Turner, president of the Vera Institute of Justice, warned that the episode in the capital underscores how rising crime presents a headwind to the calls for change in policing and punishment that George Floyd’s death sparked nearly three years ago.Biden’s veto tell “opponents of good, evidence-based criminal justice policy that scare tactics work. And the risk is that what it signals to other responsible government leaders is that it will show efforts to make sure that we have both safety and justice,” Turner warned.To Sulton, the revised code’s downfall also represents a setback in the city’s desire to take full control of its affairs.“Until we have a new code, we continue to live under laws that are vague, overlapping gaps in law, and just a penal code that the district didn’t make itself,” she said. “And I don’t think you can talk about local control if we don’t have control over our most fundamental freedoms. And I can’t think of anywhere that the stakes are higher than when we’re talking about whether to put a person in a cage.”TopicsWashington DCUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS crimenewsReuse this content More