US Politics

AnalysisTrump v Biden: how different are their policies on the US-Mexico border?Alexandra Villarreal in Austin Biden’s immigration promises fall short as some of Trump’s policies remain in place – here’s what’s similar and what’s differentUnder Donald Trump, Americans were confronted with a near-constant onslaught of racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy, especially regarding the US-Mexico border, as the same man who led chants about building a wall there won the 2016 presidential election and took control of the Oval Office for the next four years.Vulnerable migrants were mounting “an invasion”, Trump said. The United States’ asylum system – a key commitment to its humanitarian values – was “ridiculous” and “insane”. Immigrants of color made headlines for supposedly coming here from “shithole” countries, and Mexican immigrants were called drug dealers, criminals and rapists.US turns back growing number of undocumented people after arduous sea journeysRead moreAfter such public vitriol and humanitarian scandals, Joe Biden billed himself as the anti-Trump candidate who would restore honor and decency to the presidency, partly by building a fair and humane immigration system. One of his campaign statements noted: “Most Americans can trace their family history back to a choice – a choice to leave behind everything that was familiar in search of new opportunities and a new life. Joe Biden understands that is an irrefutable source of our strength.”Initially, Biden delivered, with a flurry of executive actions and other first steps to undo Trump’s crackdown. But when the number of people crossing into the US from Mexico without authorization swiftly increased, his more tempered tactics became a political liability, giving Republicans fuel to spin false yet convincing – to some – narratives about an “open” and mismanaged border.Soon, Biden’s top political operatives started pushing him to adopt a more hardline approach, while some of his immigration experts jumped ship, unable to stomach enforcing some of the same Trump-era practices they loathed.Amid such an ideological quagmire, a reactive, confusing and often contradictory immigration agenda has emerged from this administration. And now, new policies are being admonished by advocates – and even some serving Democrats – for seemingly plagiarizing Trump’s very own playbook, without meaningful input from Congress or organizations on the ground.So is the Biden White House simply a more politically correct Trump 2.0 on immigration at the US-Mexico border? We compare and contrast.Enforcing deterrenceMuch of both Trump and Biden’s border strategies are predicated on the notion that if the US government erects enough barriers and gets rid of enough incentives, people will stop trying to come.Thus far, that theory hasn’t really panned out – the US has continued to experience record-breaking numbers of migrants and asylum seekers at its south-west boundary, despite decades of presidents pursuing this paradigm of prevention through deterrence. But, at a border that is already hyper-politicized, hyper-policed and hyper-surveilled, the last two administrations have still largely relied on the enforcement-focused infrastructures and blueprints inherited from their predecessors.Recently, the Biden administration announced it would step up expedited removal, despite having previously rescinded Trump’s own sweeping expansion of these fast-tracked deportations. Under the practice, migrants can be swiftly repatriated without ever seeing a judge.Biden officials have also said they will be proposing a new rule to further limit asylum eligibility, a move that has incited anger among advocates who already fought similar bans under Trump.Expelled to dangerThe most infamous through-line between Trump and Biden’s approaches to people arriving at the US-Mexico border today has been both administrations’ controversial use of a health law to deny millions of migrants and would-be asylum seekers the opportunity to ask for protection, seemingly in violation of their rights domestically and internationally.Many people subjected to this policy – often referred to by its shorthand, Title 42 – have been stranded in or expelled to dangerous conditions in Mexico, or else swiftly returned to the unstable and sometimes life-threatening realities at home that many of them risked life and limb to escape. Others die trying to circumvent closed-off points of entry.The Trump administration invoked Title 42 ostensibly as a public health measure during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic and used it to quickly expel hundreds of thousands of people – including nearly 16,000 unaccompanied children.Biden stopped applying the aggressive policy to unaccompanied kids but has continued to expel individuals and families. Many stuck in Mexico because of Title 42 have subsequently been murdered, raped or kidnapped, with more than 13,480 reports of violent attacks during Biden’s presidency alone.Although the Biden administration eventually announced it was planning to end Title 42 restrictions last year, pending litigation has kept them in place for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, even as officials publicly argue against reliance on the policy, they have expanded its use multiple times, abruptly, to target Venezuelans and now also Nicaraguans, Haitians and Cubans.Those policy changes have been accompanied by the creation of limited legal pathways, but their eligibility requirements demand a level of financial resources and international connections that the western hemisphere’s most vulnerable, forcibly displaced people likely cannot produce.“Do not just show up at the border,” Biden warned potential migrants. “Stay where you are and apply legally from there.”Families, still separatedPart of Trump’s enduring legacy is tied to being the president who separated families at the US-Mexico border and threw “kids in cages” for days or weeks, often with little communication or information provided to keep track of them.In 2018, Trump’s zero tolerance immigration policy shook liberals and conservatives alike as they learned about terrified children being ripped from the arms of parents who were now being prosecuted. Trump was eventually forced to end these hyper-visible family separations, but he continued to advance hardline practices that adversely affected children and families seeking help at the US’s south-west boundary, whether stranding young kids in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) custody or in hazardous Mexican border towns.Biden, by contrast, has stopped holding migrant families in Ice detention, so far. He also resumed programs that allow some from the Caribbean and Central America to reunite with family members in the US, and a task force is still trying to reconnect families separated by the Trump administration.Yet even as Biden tries to clean up Trump’s mess, de facto family separations continue. Unaccompanied children are exempt from Title 42, so some parents make the difficult choice to send their kids across the border alone, even when that means indefinite time apart.Love across the border: a couple’s 13-year quest to be reunited in the USRead moreThe bottom lineSo are Biden’s border policies turning into a copy of Trump’s?The reality is more nuanced, with a long history of bad approaches to humanitarian migration across presidents and some positive moves toward solutions from Biden, bolstered by a different rhetoric, new alternative legal pathways and attempts at more efficient processing.Yet parallels exist. Most notably, both administrations have done devastating harm to millions of forcibly displaced people, who came here looking for safety and opportunity only to become victims of a system that has left them stranded and vulnerable.And with Biden now shifting to the center and immigration looming as a liability issue in the 2024 presidential election for Democrats – most of whom get sucked into the xenophobic right-wing narrative without figuring out how to defend the benefits of the American melting pot – progressives, advocates – and millions of migrants – should brace for a tough foreseeable future.TopicsUS immigrationUS-Mexico borderUS politicsBiden administrationTrump administrationNicaraguaHondurasanalysisReuse this content More

InterviewLBJ OK? Historian Mark Lawrence on a president resurgentMartin Pengelly Fifty years after Lyndon Johnson died, the director of the 36th president’s library discusses his politics and progressive idealsFifty years ago on Sunday, Lyndon Baines Johnson died. He was 64, and had been out of power since stepping down as president in 1969, in the shadow of the Vietnam war. Forty-five years later, in 2018, the Guardian marked the anniversary of his death. The headline: “Why Lyndon Johnson, a truly awful man, is my political hero.”Why Lyndon Johnson, a truly awful man, is my political hero | Jack BernhardtRead moreMark Lawrence laughs.“I think I read that one,” he says.It seems likely. Lawrence, a distinguished Vietnam scholar, is director of the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas.Johnson was a Texas Democrat who rose through Congress to be vice-president to John F Kennedy, then assumed the presidency when Kennedy was killed. From 1963 to 1969, Johnson presided over great social reform at home and gathering disaster abroad. His legacy has never been less than complex, his place in American culture attracting historians by the hundred and big-name actors in droves. Bryan Cranston, Brian Cox and Woody Harrelson have recently played LBJ.Lawrence continues: “One of the ideas that an awful lot of people hold about LBJ, and I think it’s not wholly incorrect, but it’s problematic, is that he was this vulgar, crude man who used four-letter words and demeaned his subordinates and threw temper tantrums.“There’s no question that Caro” – Robert Caro’s biographical masterwork – “is the go-to source for the uglier parts of his personal style. But I think you can also make an argument, and Caro I think comes around to this view in the later books, that LBJ managed to combine whatever elements of that old caricature hold up with a genuine sense of compassion for ordinary people.“Many biographers see the link between his own hardscrabble youth and the struggles of his family and a peculiar sensitivity to the plight of the downtrodden, which certainly affected his view of racial discrimination. The sensitivity to poverty, whether it affected Black, brown or white, came from his own experience.“My writing about LBJ has largely been critical, but I don’t have any difficulty saying this was a man with a genuine sense of compassion.”Lawrence is speaking to mark the half-century since the 36th president died. LBJ is in the news anyway. He was the architect of the Great Society, overseeing the passage of civil rights protections and a welfare system now under renewed attack. Joe Biden often compares his post-Covid presidency to that of Franklin D Roosevelt amid the Great Depression, but comparisons to Johnson are ready to hand.Lawrence says: “The points of similarity are remarkable. The guy with long service in the Senate” – Johnson from Texas, 1949-1961, Biden from Delaware, 1973-2009 – “the guy who could cross the aisle, the guy who spoke in pragmatic, bipartisan terms. Both of these guys became vice-president to a younger, less experienced but much more charismatic person” – Biden to Barack Obama – “and that was kind of their ticket to the presidency.“But I think some of these comparisons are ultimately unfair to Biden, because the political context is just so different. My own view is, sure, LBJ deserves credit for being this enormously persuasive, forceful guy who knew how to bend people to his will. But at the end of the day, LBJ was pushing an open door.“Even the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, these great achievements, they passed by big margins. There were bipartisan coalitions. LBJ deserves credit for his ability to put those coalitions together. But … I think it’s possible to exaggerate LBJ’s importance and to forget the importance of Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits and Everett Dirksen, all key players as well.”Bipartisan players, too. Humphrey was LBJ’s vice-president, Javits a Republican senator from New York, Dirksen, of Illinois, Republican Senate minority leader.“I think that’s precisely what’s lacking now. The situation is so polarised that you could bring LBJ back from the dead and he’d be an utter failure in this political context, because his skills would have been meaningless in the context of 2023.”Biden passed a coronavirus rescue package, an infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, all meant to help the US recover from Covid, with razor-thin margins in Congress and against Republicans gone to extremes. LBJ’s shadow may be long – at a shade over 6ft 3in he is the second-tallest president, after Abraham Lincoln – but Biden does not necessarily labour within it.So how might progressives see Johnson? If they read Caro, they will learn how he came from a world of Texas populism, tinged with socialism, that now seems far gone indeed.“At least by the standards of the era,” Lawrence sees in LBJ “a genuine willingness to think hard about poverty and how to insulate people against economic forces over which individuals had no control whatsoever.”Whether teaching in a dirt-poor school in Cotulla in 1928 or working “for the National Youth Administration in the 1930s, LBJ shows glimmers of his willingness to cross racial lines and to think seriously about the situation of African Americans and Mexican Americans”.1968: the year that changed AmericaRead moreTo Lawrence, the Texas years “indicate that LBJ was an unusual person, for a southern white man who came of age in the 1920s and 30s.”In the 1950s, when Johnson led the Senate, he defended white supremacy. As president, he oversaw the Vietnam disaster. But Charles Kaiser, a Guardian contributor and author of 1968 in America and The Gay Metropolis, also sees the bigger picture.“In 1968, I hated Lyndon Johnson with all my heart, because I was 17 – and lived in fear of being drafted. Fifty years later, it is clear three other things about his presidency were much more important than the war that destroyed him.“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made him the most courageous president since Lincoln. Johnson may or may not have said ‘We have lost the south for a generation’ after he signed the 1964 law, but he certainly knew that was true. By fighting for those two laws, he did more to redeem the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation than any president before him.“Medicare is the third prong of a noble legacy. It did more to improve the lives of senior citizens than anything else except Franklin Roosevelt’s social security. A hundred years from now, I think Johnson will be considered one of our greatest presidents.”To Lawrence, Johnson’s reputation is “mixed. But I think the mix of impressions is quite different from what it was certainly 30 years ago.“When he died, and for many years thereafter, Vietnam hung so heavily over LBJ that he was a little bit radioactive … it was something conservatives and the left could agree on. Vietnam was a debacle and LBJ bore principal responsibility for it. But I think in the last decade and a half, there’s been a gradual reappraisal.Turn Every Page: a peek into Robert Caro and Robert Gottlieb’s long creative relationshipRead more“The level of dysfunction and partisanship in Washington has led people to take another look at LBJ and how he was able to work across the aisle and achieve so much. There’s a kind of longing, I think, for that kind of political effectiveness.“So many of the issues that LBJ worked on are back with us, and I think this has led at least parts of the political spectrum to have a new appreciation for him.“In a period when immigration and the environment and voting rights are under threat in a profound way, people are rediscovering LBJ as someone who maybe didn’t have perfect answers but worked very effectively, at least by the standards of recent decades, and achieved real results.”TopicsBooksUS politicsPolitics booksHistory booksDemocratsUS domestic policyUS foreign policyinterviewsReuse this content More

Proud Boys on defensive at sedition trial haunted by absent TrumpFive leaders of the far-right group on trial for their role in the January 6 attack have tried to turn attention to the ex-president While federal prosecutors are casting the Capitol insurrection trial of five far-right Proud Boys leaders as an attempt to bring participants of an attack on US democracy to account, the members of the group are using the proceedings to ask one question even some of their opponents on the political left agree is valid.We Are Proud Boys review: chilling exposé illuminates Republicans’ fascist turnRead moreWhy have prosecutors so far only focused their energy on the supporters of Donald Trump who are accused of a coordinated invasion of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the congressional certification of his defeat to Joe Biden in the previous year’s presidential election? Is it because they regard the former Republican president himself – who urged his supporters to “fight like hell” that deadly day – as too formidable and them as easier targets?Attorneys for the ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and four of his lieutenants have sought to ingrain that question in the minds of jurors chosen after a particularly turbulent selection process which began last month and gave way to opening arguments and witness testimony beginning 12 January.They do so even as the strategy has not proven effective in other cases where it has been suggested that it is really Trump who is culpable for the Capitol attack – not his less powerful sycophants and camp followers.Weeks after the seditious conspiracy convictions of two leaders of the Oath Keepers – another far-right group – in connection with the Capitol attack, prosecutors in the Proud Boys case have broadly asserted that Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs mustered up a “fighting force” to halt Biden from ever assuming the presidency.Tarrio and his fellow self-described “western chauvinists” believed a Democratic Biden presidency would threaten the group’s very existence, therefore they engaged in seditious conspiracy, headed a mob that forced its way into the Capitol and tried to drive a stake through “the heart of our democracy”, prosecutor Jason McCullough contended.Tarrio and his four co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to their alleged roles in the attack, which has been linked to nine deaths, including the suicides of law enforcement officers who protected the Capitol and were left traumatized. An attorney for Rehl, Carmen Hernandez, has insisted that her client went to the nation’s capital on 6 January not to riot but to exercise his free speech rights in protest of Trump’s loss to Biden.Meanwhile, an attorney representing Tarrio, Sabino Jauregui, argued that his client and the others were simply on trial because “it’s too hard to blame Trump,” whose full-throated defense to any prosecution would be mounted by an “army of lawyers”.“It’s easier to blame … the Proud Boys,” Jauregui added, saying his client and his fellow co-defendants were mere “scapegoats”.Similar arguments have been made before by others among the nearly 950 people who have been criminally charged with having participated in the Capitol riot, including about 540 who have been convicted. Those hefty numbers notably do not include Trump, though the former president has been recommended for prosecution by a congressional committee which investigated the attack.Just days ago, a judge ruled that a woman who helped attack the Capitol was indeed merely following orders from Trump, who fired up his supporters with false claims that he had been robbed of victory over Biden by electoral fraudsters.But, presiding over a bench trial, the judge concluded that the woman was still responsible for her actions, convicted her of charges of violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and offered up a stark reminder of how flimsy the “Trump made me do it” defense is.Nonetheless, a recent article in Salon agreed with Jauregui that “it’s ridiculous that Trump’s not in prison” over the Capitol attack.The willingness of Jauregui and others in the Proud Boys case to so pointedly ask why low-ranking followers of Trump are having their fates tried by juries while he runs for the White House again could reflect “a growing sense of frustration in the larger public” over how the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, has handled what to do about the former president.It could be a couple of weeks more, if not longer, before jurors decide the outcome of the charges against Tarrio, Rehl, Nordean, Pezzola and Biggs, who each face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of seditious conspiracy.The most powerful evidence and witnesses against the accused Proud Boys almost certainly remains ahead after court wrapped up Friday, the seventh day since jurors in the case began hearing arguments and testimony.Prosecutors have said they intend to make their case with private communications between the defendants, their statements in public, their coordinated movements at the Capitol, and their celebrations of the attack before they then tried to make it seem like they were never involved.But the trial’s already had plenty of drama.Beginning before Christmas, jury selection was turbulent, in part because Rehl’s lawyer Hernandez moved to dismiss nearly every prospective juror who mentioned having any knowledge whatsoever of the well-publicized Proud Boys, CNN reported.Then, when prospective jurors claimed they had not heard of the Proud Boys, Tarrio’s lawyers Jauregui and Nayib Hassan objected, saying those people could be lying to get on the jury in hopes of convicting their client.Prosecutors also reportedly contributed to the spectacle by blaming their failure to provide evidence binders to the defense because their office had gone through their supply of dividers and had not gotten permission to buy new ones.Then, after being seated, jurors heard grueling recordings of radio transmissions among police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol during the attack.“Send all you have!” one officer said as Trump supporters stormed their way into the building. Another voice later lamented: “Our situation here is dire.”They later also heard from a British film-maker, Nick Quested, who explained that he began following the Proud Boys and recording video of them because he wanted to document worsening political divisions across the US. He ended up capturing footage of the Proud Boys among the January 6 mob, he testified, according to the left-leaning Daily Kos website.Quested filmed as mob members screamed “treason” and “honor your oath” at police in riot gear who were desperately trying to maintain order. But the odds were overwhelmingly against the officers.“There was maybe a dozen police officers at the first line,” Quested said on the witness stand, “and you can see there are a couple hundred people at least at this point and more coming.”The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsThe far rightUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

‘We don’t know his real name’: George Santos’s unravelling web of lies ‘Nobody even knows who this guy is,’ critics say, but he was still awarded with House panel assignments – showing the party ‘stands for nothing’“He didn’t just steal from a service dog. He didn’t just steal from a dying service dog. He stole from a disabled homeless veteran’s dying service dog. Oh my God. You evil and stupid!”That was how Leslie Jones, guest host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, summed up just one of this week’s revelations about George Santos, a US congressman whose shameless fabulism has stunned Washington, a capital that thought it had smelt every flavour of mendacity from politicians.Serial liar George Santos is the politician Americans deserve | Moira DoneganRead more“What does this man have to do get thrown out of Congress?” Jones asked, echoing the thoughts of many. “He’s a fucking liar.”Yet the answer is that, far from being expelled from the House of Representatives, Santos, 34, was rewarded with assignments on two of its committees. The vote of confidence appeared to be an expedient calculation by the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, aware Republicans have such a slim majority that even losing one seat would make it much harder to pass legislation.But it was also a decision, critics said, that showed the party of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower has lost its moral compass. Stuart Stevens, a political consultant and author of It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump, said: “Santos is a perfect example of the collapse of the Republican party.“It shows that the party stands for nothing. It seems like a million years ago but there was a time when we said character was destiny. Nobody even knows who this guy is. We literally don’t know his real name.”Indeed, as recently as four years ago, Santos was introducing himself publicly as “Anthony Devolder” – a combination of his middle name and his mother’s maiden name. It is just one strand in a web of deceit that makes the protagonists of Catch Me If You Can, The Talented Mr Ripley and Pinocchio look as honest as the day is long.That web went mostly unnoticed during Santos’s election campaign in New York last year but has unravelled with dizzying speed in the past few weeks, forcing him to run a daily gauntlet of reporters on Capitol Hill and to admit lying about his family heritage, college education and job experience.For instance, Santos made the false and offensive claim that his maternal grandparents escaped from the Holocaust. In fact, they were born in Brazil, and he has now been forced to acknowledge that he was raised Catholic.But when Santos was caught falsely claiming to be Jewish, he told the conservative Fox News network that he was not actually lying because he had merely referred to himself as “Jew-ish” – presumably unaware that he was borrowing an old joke from the British polymath Jonathan Miller, who once declared: “I’m not really a Jew; just Jew-ish.”Santos wrote on Twitter that his mother was killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on New York but subsequently said she died on 23 December 2016. A review of his mother’s employment record found no evidence of her ever working at or near the World Trade Center, while her immigration history suggests that she was not even on American soil on 9/11.Last October, Santos told the USA Today newspaper: “I am openly gay, have never had an issue with my sexual identity in the past decade, and I can tell you and assure you, I will always be an advocate for LGBTQ+ folks.” It subsequently emerged that he had been married to a woman, whom he divorced in 2019.Santos claimed to have briefly attended Horace Mann, an elite private preparatory school in New York, but the school has no record of him. He said he has academic degrees from New York University and New York’s Baruch College and was even a star player on the Baruch volleyball team – again, there is no record of him having studied at either institution or playing volleyball.Santos also said he had worked for the top Wall Street firms Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but neither company could find any records verifying this. In an interview with the New York Post newspaper, Santos said: “My sins here are embellishing my résumé. I’m sorry.”Santos portrayed himself as a successful property investor whose family owned several buildings. But court records indicate that Santos was the subject of three eviction proceedings in Queens, New York, between 2014 and 2017 because of unpaid rent.In 2020 Santos was hired by Harbor City Capitol Corp, an investment firm based in Florida. The company ceased operating in 2021 after it was accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of being a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.The scandals keep coming. On Wednesday Santos was accused of taking $3,000 from an online fundraiser intended to help save the life of a sick dog owned by Richard Osthoff, a disabled military veteran. Santos called “reports that I would let a dog die … shocking and insane” – but did not directly deny them.On Thursday old acquaintances of Santos said he had competed as a drag queen in Brazilian beauty pageants 15 years ago, opening him to charges of hypocrisy: he has endorsed Florida’s hardline “don’t say gay” bill and aligned himself with far-right Republicans hostile to transgender rights. Again he issued an angry denial, saying the media “continues to make outrageous claims about my life”.And on top of everything, law enforcement authorities in Brazil have said they intend to reinstate fraud charges against Santos relating to a case involving a stolen chequebook in 2008. Eric Swalwell, a Democratic congressman from California, has branded him “a wanted international criminal”.Even seasoned observers are aghast at the outlandishness. Monika McDermott, a political science professor at Fordham University in New York, said: “This goes beyond anything I believe I’ve ever seen. We see a fair share of dissembling or chest beating in various ways but to outright lie about your résumé and continue to do so even once caught in such lies really takes a certain amount of courage – let’s call it that.”Democrats have asked the House ethics committee to investigate Santos. State and local Republican leaders in New York have called on him to resign after lying to the voters who elected him. But the congressman has dug in his heels and refused.McCarthy and Republican leaders in Washington have said they will handle the situation internally. But they know the political stakes. They hold just a 10-seat majority and know that Santos represents a district that could flip to Democrats in a special election.McDermott added: “It’s all in the numbers. I don’t see how they can do anything about this without risking their slim majority in the House and so they’re going to have to stand behind him as much as they can. At this point they’re unlikely to do anything about it.”Notably, while some congressional Republicans have given Santos the cold shoulder, he appears to have found comfort with the House Freedom Caucus and extremist Maga (Make America Great Again) wing.Zac Petkanas, senior adviser to the House Accountability War Room, a rapid-response watchdog, said: “People are rightly focusing on the lies he’s told about his résumé, where he got his money from, where he went to school and all of that but he’s also someone who participated in the January 6 rally.“He’s not just a random member of Congress; he’s in the Maga contingent that has taken control. He’s in the Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert cabal. The lies, the conspiracy theories, the encouragement of political violence is part of the brand of this breed of politicians that is wielding such influence over the new Congress.”Some see Santos not as an outlier or unicorn but the natural culmination of the Republican party’s descent over the past decade. Donald Trump, who burst into political prominence with the racist lie that Barack Obama has been born outside the US, made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency, according to the Washington Post.One of his senior advisers, Kellyanne Conway, infamously coined the phrase “alternative facts”. Some 147 Republicans voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election; McCarthy was among them. And during last year’s midterm elections, Republican candidates such as Herschel Walker were caught in numerous falsehoods.In this sense Santos represents a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist, said: “There isn’t a better living mascot for what the Republican party is turning itself into than George Santos – one that is completely divorced from truth and reality, one that openly embraces conspiracy theory, one that time and again rejects fact and science.“When you have the standard bearer for your party be someone like Donald Trump, who lies about everything from classified documents to the crowd size of his inauguration and everything in between, it’s only a matter of time before people emerge who completely bathe themselves in lies.”Bardella, a former senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight committee, added: “It’s hardly surprising that someone like Santos has emerged and successfully conned his way into elected office and the Republican party leadership’s refusal to do anything or say anything about it only encourages copycats to follow.”TopicsGeorge SantosRepublicansUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Justice department finds more classified documents at Joe Biden’s homeNew search turns up six more items from tenures as vice-president and in the Senate A new search of president Joe Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware by the US justice department found six more items, including documents with classification markings, a lawyer for the president said in a statement Saturday night.Some of the classified documents and “surrounding materials” dated from Biden’s tenure in the senate, where he represented Delaware from 1973 to 2009, according to his lawyer, Bob Bauer. Other documents were from his tenure as vice-president in the Obama administration, from 2009 through 2017, Bauer said.Biden, Trump and two very different classified document scandals, explainedRead moreThe justice department, which conducted a search on Friday that lasted more than 12 hours, also took some notes that Biden had personally handwritten as vice-president, according to the lawyer.The president offered access “to his home to allow DOJ to conduct a search of the entire premises for potential vice-presidential records and potential classified material,” Bauer said.Neither Biden nor his wife were present during the search, the attorney said. Biden is in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, for the weekend.Justice department investigators coordinated the search with Biden’s lawyers ahead of time, Bauer said, and the president’s personal and White House lawyers were present at the time.Other classified government records were discovered this month at Biden’s Wilmington residence, and in November at a private office he maintained at a Washington, DC, thinktank after ending his tenure as vice-president in the Obama administration in 2017.On Saturday, Bauer did not make clear in his statement where in the Wilmington home the documents were found. The previous classified documents were found in the home’s garage and in a nearby storage space.The search shows federal investigators are swiftly moving forward with the probe into classified documents found in Biden’s possession. This month, attorney general Merrick Garland named a special counsel to probe the matter.Special counsel Robert Hur is investigating how the president and his team handled Obama-era classified documents that were recently found in Biden’s private possession.There’s one winner in the Biden documents discovery: Donald TrumpRead moreBiden’s lawyers found all the documents discovered before Friday’s search by the DOJ, according to the White House. The latest search was the first time federal law enforcement authorities have conducted a search for government documents at Biden’s private addresses, according to information released publicly.Republicans have compared the investigation to the ongoing probe into how former president Donald Trump handled classified documents after his presidency. The White House has noted that Biden’s team has cooperated with authorities in their probe and had turned over those documents. Trump resisted doing so until an FBI search in August at his Florida resort.The search escalates the legal and political stakes for the president, who has insisted that the previous discovery of classified material at his home and former office would eventually be deemed inconsequential.Biden said on Thursday he has “no regrets” about not publicly disclosing before the midterm elections the discovery of classified documents at his former office and he believed the matter will be resolved.“There is no there, there,” Biden told reporters during a trip to California on Thursday.Since the discovery of Biden’s documents, Trump has complained that justice department investigators were treating his successor differently.“When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” Trump said in a social media post earlier this month.TopicsUS newsJoe BidenDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, 197323 January 1973: The supreme court rules that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy Washington, 22 JanuaryIn a long awaited decision the United States supreme court ruled today that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy. During the later stages the State has an increasing power of intervention, the court ruled by a seven to two majority; and during the last trimester can refuse to allow the operation.The decision, which came today as part of a lengthy ruling which declared the Texas and Georgia anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, has been generally welcomed by liberal groups here. Mrs Lee Giddings, of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, said today she was “absolutely thrilled.”US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v WadeRead moreBut one of the two dissenting supreme court justices, the Nixon appointee Justice Byron White (the other dissenting justice was also a Nixon appointee, Mr William Rehnquist), later criticised the verdict as “improvident, extravagant, and an exercise of raw judicial power.”In his ruling, Justice Harry Blackmun said that during the first three months of a pregnancy “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the woman’s doctor.” After that, the State “In promoting its interest in the mother’s health” may regulate the abortion procedure by among other things, making laws, regulating the doctor’s terms of reference.Only in the third three-month period, when a foetus could presumably live, if there was a premature birth, can the State “regulate or even forbid abortion.” The justices ruled the State could intervene thus “where it was necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of life or the health of the mother.”The one dissenting voice raised today at the supreme court ruling came from the Women’s National Abortion Action Committee, which condemned the “artificial and arbitrary” time limits imposed by judges. A spokesperson, as they say here, says that “a woman should always have an absolute right to determine what happens to her own body.” Harsh reaction is also expected, of course, from the Roman Catholic church and other anti-abortion lobby groups.This is an edited extract. Read the article in full.TopicsAbortionFrom the Guardian archiveRoe v WadeUS supreme courtReproductive rightsLaw (US)WomenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Ron Klain to reportedly step down as Biden chief of staffNew York Times reports Klain to announce departure in coming weeks, following two grueling years since president took office Ron Klain, Joe Biden’s chief of staff, is reportedly set to step down from his position, in what will be the biggest change to the US president’s inner circle of advisors since he took office two years ago.Klain will announce his departure in the coming weeks, according to the New York Times, after telling colleagues that he is ready to move on following a grueling period of successes and frustrations that stretch back to Biden’s successful 2020 election campaign.Trump is trying to make a comeback. It’s not working | Lloyd GreenRead more“Two hard years,” Klain tweeted on Friday, marking the second anniversary of Biden’s inauguration. “So much to be done. But so much progress.”The impending exit of Klain follows a period where the chief of staff worked to secure Biden’s legislative priorities, including the bipartisan infrastructure bill and last year’s inflation reduction act, which was achieved following 18 months of often torturous negotiations between the White House and lawmakers, most notably Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.More recently, Biden has come under scrutiny for alleged improper handling of federal documents, as well as fresh pressure from Republicans in their new majority in the House of Representatives. The new chief of staff is expected to have to mount a defense of Biden’s victories so far, as well as oversee the lead-up to a likely re-election bid by the 80-year-old president.Klain, who is 61, has a long record in Democratic political circles, having been involved in both of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns, acted as chief of staff to both Al Gore and then Biden when the men served as vice president previously. Klain, a lawyer by training, also oversaw the Obama administration’s response to an outbreak of Ebola in 2014.He was named as Biden’s chief of staff just a few days after the 2020 election victory was secured.TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

Trump is trying to make a comeback. It’s not workingLloyd GreenHis ‘campaign event’ this week was a dud, his legal woes are growing and his cronies are viciously infighting Once again, the legal pitfalls and enthusiasm deficit that plague Donald Trump’s bid for the 2024 Republican nomination are on display. On Thursday, a federal judge imposed $938,000 in sanctions on Trump and his lawyers. Meanwhile, an appearance touted by Trump as a major campaign event was nothing more than a closed-door speech to deep-pocketed election-deniers at a Trump property.For those looking for uplift from a Trump campaign, those days are over. Rather, personal grievance and claims of a stolen 2020 election will likely be his dominant themes. For the 45th president, that may bring catharsis. For everyone else in the Republican party, that spells chaos, headache and the possibility of another Trump defeat at the hands of Joe Biden and the Democrats.Trump, Bankman-Fried and Musk are the monsters of American capitalism | Robert ReichRead more“Mr Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” the court thundered in its ruling. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process.”Judge Donald Middlebrooks shredded Trump and his lawyers for bringing a failed and frivolous racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, her political allies and a passel of ex-government officials. In the judge’s eyes, the lawsuit was little else than a repackaged Trump campaign stump speech.A day later, Trump dropped a separate lawsuit filed against Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. That case too was pending before Middlebrooks, who similarly viewed that matter as “vexatious and frivolous”. The threat of sanctions hung in the air.As for the Trump speech the public never heard, it now is another self-inflicted nothingburger, up there with his much-touted Trump NFT superhero trading cards – a waste of time and attention, a lost opportunity.Earlier in the day, Trump had vowed to deliver a major political announcement later that night. He also promised to resume his signature rallies. Instead, he spoke behind closed doors at Trump Doral, his resort in Miami, to Judicial Watch, a tax-exempt group ostensibly dedicated to promoting “integrity, transparency and accountability in government and fidelity to the rule of law”.That is the line Judicial Watch feeds the IRS. Reality is different. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, pushed Trump to declare victory early on election night 2020 and stop counting ballots. Fitton also argued that White House records were Trump’s to keep.Rule of law? Not so much, actually.To be sure, Trump still leads the pack of prospective Republican presidential nominees. No other Republican contender possesses the same rapport with the party’s white working-class base; no one else is owed so much by Kevin McCarthy, the beleaguered speaker of the House.By the numbers, Trump retains a double-digit advantage over Ron DeSantis, Florida’s spite-filled but mirthless governor. So far, the 45th president’s mounting legal woes, listless campaign and friction with the evangelical leadership have not displaced him from his perch.At the same time, the Republican field appears poised for a growth spurt, and if 2016 teaches anything, it is that more actually is merrier from Trump’s vantage point. It dilutes the opposition.Kevin McCarthy’s debt ceiling standoff is yet more Republican madness | Richard WolffeRead moreRight now, anyway, Trump’s prospective challengers are running in place or forming circular firing squads. Mike Pence, his vice-president, hawks So Help Me God, a memoir. His numbers last hit double digits in June 2022. Candidates in retrograde usually lose.Apparently, Pence is betting that abortion and the supreme court’s decision overturning Roe v Wade may get him to the promised land. Or not. In case Pence forgot, voters in otherwise reliably conservative Kansas and Kentucky rejected abortion bans.Meanwhile, Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, and Nikki Haley, his one-time UN ambassador, are publicly engaged in a personal spat. In Never Give an Inch, his soon-to-be released memoir, Pompeo trashes Haley for “abandoning” Trump and being less than consequential.Celebrity Apprentice is back. “Haley has become just another career politician whose ambitions matter more than her words,” Taylor Budowich, a former Trump spokesman who sued the January 6 committee, has since chimed in.To be sure, Haley gives as good as she gets. She accuses Pompeo of peddling “lies and gossip to sell a book” – arguing that Pompeo “is printing a Haley anecdote that he says he doesn’t know for certain happened this way”, to quote Maggie Haberman.Yet for all of his would-be opponents’ missteps, Trump’s road to re-nomination won’t be a coronation. His mojo is missing, his aura of inevitability damaged, if not gone. In the two months since Trump announced his candidacy, he has barely ventured from the confines of Mar-a-Lago, his redoubt by the Atlantic.There is also the primary calendar. Trump could well face Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s popular governor, in the state’s primary. A Trump loss in the Granite State would be monumental. He won that contest seven years ago. And down in Georgia, governor Brian Kemp may be aching for revenge.Beyond that, Trump has suffered a series of recent legal setbacks. Last month, a Manhattan jury convicted the Trump Organization on tax and fraud charges. As a coda, the court imposed $1.6m in fines, the maximum allowed under state law.After Brexit and Trump, rightwing populists cling to power – but the truth is they can’t govern | Jonathan FreedlandRead moreThen there is the pending sexual assault and defamation litigation brought by E Jean Carroll. At a rage-filled deposition, the ex-reality show host flashed moments of verbal incontinence. There, he confused the plaintiff with Marla Maples, his second wife. In that split second, his much-hyped “she’s not my type” defense may have vanished.The near future does not appear much brighter. A trial is set for later this spring.Meanwhile, the special counsel moves ahead and the Manhattan district attorney reportedly shows renewed interest in Trump Organization payments to Stormy Daniels. Along the way, Michael Cohen has resurfaced. The circus is back.To top it off, in Georgia, a Fulton county court will hear arguments this coming week on whether to release a grand jury report on the 2020 election. If indicted, Trump’s fate on extradition could well rest with DeSantis. Now that’s ironic.
Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionUS politicsRepublicansRon DeSantisUS elections 2024commentReuse this content More