US Politics

House January 6 committee to focus on Trump’s tweet at extremist group hearingFormer president’s notorious ‘Be there, will be wild!’ tweet was catalyst for violent protests, congress members will argue The House January 6 select committee is expected to make the case at its seventh hearing Tuesday that Donald Trump gave the signal to the extremist groups that stormed the Capitol to target and obstruct the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college win.The panel will zero in on a pivotal tweet sent by the former president in the early hours of the morning on 19 December 2020, according to sources close to the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the forthcoming hearing.“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Trump said in the tweet. “Be there, will be wild!”Trump lawyers feel heat as legal net tightens on plot to overturn electionRead moreThe select committee will say at the hearing – led by congressmen Jamie Raskin and Stephanie Murphy – that Trump’s tweet was the catalyst that triggered the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, as well as Stop the Steal activists, to target the certification.And Trump sent the tweet knowing that for those groups, it amounted to a confirmation that they should put into motion their plans for January 6, the select committee will say, and encouraged thousands of other supporters to also march on the Capitol for a protest.The tweet was the pivotal moment in the timeline leading up to the Capitol attack, the select committee will say, since it was from that point that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers seriously started preparations, and Stop the Steal started applying for permits.The select committee also currently plans to play video clips from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s recent testimony to House investigators at Tuesday’s hearing.Raskin is expected to first touch on the immediate events before the tweet: a contentious White House meeting on 18 December 2020 where Trump weighed seizing voting machines and appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud.The meeting involved Trump and four informal advisers, the Guardian has reported, including Trump’s ex-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, ex-Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and ex-Trump aide Emily Newman.Once in the Oval Office, they implored Trump to invoke executive order 13848, which granted him emergency powers in the event of foreign interference in the election – though that had not happened – to seize voting machines and install Powell as special counsel.The former president ultimately demurred on both of the proposals. But after the Flynn-Powell-Byrne-Newman plan for him to overturn the election fell apart, the select committee will say, he turned his attention to January 6 as his final chance and sent his tweet.The response to Trump’s tweet was direct and immediate, the panel will show, noting that Stop the Steal announced plans for a protest in Washington set to coincide with Biden’s certification just hours after the former president sent his missive. Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attackRead moreThe Proud Boys – whose top members has since been indicted for seditious conspiracy over the Capitol attack – also started to crystalize what their plans were for January 6 the following day, according to federal prosecutors prosecuting the case.On 20 December 2020, prosecutors have said, the former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio created an encrypted group chat called “MOSD Leaders Group” – described by Tarrio as a “national rally planning” committee that included his top lieutenants.The day after Tarrio started the MOSD Leaders Group – the Monday after Trump’s tweet that came on a Saturday – the leaders of Stop the Steal applied for a permit to stage a protest on “Lot 8” near the Capitol, and around that time, sent live the WildProtest.com website.Through the rest of December and spurred on by Trump’s tweet, the select committee will say citing the Proud Boys indictment, the Proud Boys leaders used the MOSD chats to plan a “DC trip” and tell their members to dress incognito for their operation on January 6.Top members of the Oath Keepers militia group led by Stewart Rhodes, who have also been indicted for seditious conspiracy, made similar plans as they prepared to obstruct the congressional certification of Biden’s election win, the panel intends to show.The select committee will then focus on how the Oath Keepers stockpiled weapons and created an armed quick reaction force ready to deploy to the Capitol, and how the group ended up as the security detail for far-right activist Roger Stone and other Trump allies.One of the witnesses providing public testimony at the hearing is expected to be Jason van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers who left the group around 2017 but is slated to discuss their motivations and how they operated.The 1st Amendment Praetorian, Flynn’s paramilitary group, is also expected to get a brief mention at the hearing, as will the various “war rooms” at the Willard hotel, where both Stone and Flynn, as well as Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, were spotted ahead of January 6.The select committee, through Raskin’s portion of the hearing, will run through the effects of Trump’s tweet on preparations for January 6 right up until the morning of the Capitol attack and Trump’s speech at the Save America rally on the Ellipse.Congresswoman Murphy is then expected examine the Ellipse rally itself, and Trump’s incendiary rhetoric where he told his supporters that he would march with them to the Capitol, giving the pro-Trump crowd the ultimate incentive to storm Biden’s certification.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

US defence firm ends talks to buy NSO Group’s surveillance technologyWhite House opposition on security grounds seen as fatal obstacle to L3 Harris proceeding with purchase The American defence contractor L3 Harris has abandoned talks to acquire NSO Group’s surveillance technology after the White House said any potential deal raised “serious counterintelligence and security concerns for the US government”.The White House opposition, which was first reported by the Guardian and its media partners last month, was seen as an insurmountable obstacle to any transaction, according to a person familiar with the talks who said the potential acquisition was now “certainly” off the table.The news, which is being reported by the Guardian, Washington Post and Haaretz, follows a tumultuous period for the Israeli surveillance company, which was placed on a US blacklist by president Joe Biden’s administration last November after the commerce department’s bureau of industry and security determined that the firm had acted “contrary to the foreign policy and national security interests of the US”.A person familiar with the talks said L3 Harris had vetted any potential deal for NSO’s technology with its customers in the US government and had received some signals of support from the American intelligence community.A US official appeared to question that characterisation and said: “We are unaware of any indications of support or involvement from anyone in a decision-making, policymaking or senior role.” The US official also said the intelligence community had “raised concerns and was not supportive of the deal”.Sources said L3 Harris had been caught off guard when a senior White House official expressed strong reservations about any potential deal after news of the talks was first reported. At that time – last month – a senior White House official suggested that any possible deal could be seen as an effort by a foreign government to circumvent US export control measures. The senior White House official also said that a transaction with a blacklisted company involving any American company – particularly a cleared defence contractor – “would spur intensive review to examine whether the transaction poses a counterintelligence threat to the US government and its systems and information”.Once L3 Harris understood the level of “definitive pushback”, a person familiar with the talks said, “there was a view [in L3 Harris] that there was no way L3 was moving forward with this”.“If the [US] government is not aligned, there is no way for L3 to be aligned,” the person said.There were other complications. The Israeli ministry of defence would have had to sign off on any takeover of NSO surveillance technology by a US company and it is far from clear whether officials were willing to bless any deal that took control of NSO’s licences away from Israel.Last month, one person familiar with the talks said that if a deal were struck, it would probably involve selling NSO’s capabilities to a drastically curtailed customer base that would include the US government, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada – which comprise the “five eyes” intelligence alliance – as well as some Nato allies.But the person also said that the deal faced several unresolved issues, including whether the technology would be housed in Israel or the US and whether Israel would be allowed to continue to use the technology as a customer.NSO did not respond to a request for comment.TopicsUS politicsJoe BidenIsraelnewsReuse this content More

Biden defends Saudi Arabia trip that aims to reset tiesPresident says he aims to reorient relations and meet with the crown prince, who he previously denounced as a pariah Joe Biden on Saturday defended his decision to travel to Saudi Arabia saying human rights would be on his agenda as he gave a preview of a trip on which he aims to reset ties with the crown prince, who he previously denounced as a pariah.The American president will hold bilateral talks with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz and his leadership team, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on his visit to the Middle East next week.Prince Mohammed, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, was believed to be behind the 2018 murder of Washington Post journalist and political opponent Jamal Khashoggi, according to the US intelligence community.In a commentary published in the Washington Post late Saturday, Biden said his aim was to reorient and not rupture relations with a country that has been a strategic partner of the US for 80 years.“I know that there are many who disagree with my decision to travel to Saudi Arabia,” Biden wrote. “My views on human rights are clear and longstanding, and fundamental freedoms are always on the agenda when I travel abroad.”Biden needs oil-rich Saudi Arabia’s help at a time of high gasoline prices and as he encourages efforts to end the war in Yemen after the Saudis recently extended a ceasefire there. The United States also wants to curb Iran’s influence in the Middle East and China’s global sway.Biden argued that Saudi Arabia had recently helped to restore unity among the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, had fully supported the truce in Yemen and was working to stabilize oil markets with other OPEC producers.Biden said he will be the first president to fly from Israel to Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, next week, which he said would be a small symbol of “budding relations and steps toward normalization” between Israel and the Arab world.“I will be the first president to visit the Middle East since 9/11 without US troops engaged in a combat mission there,” Biden said. “It’s my aim to keep it that way.”TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsMohammed bin SalmanSaudi ArabiaMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midtermsVice-president highlights that down-ballot contests at local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights Vice-President Kamala Harris renewed pleas to voters ahead of the midterm congressional races to elect pro-choice candidates, as the Biden administration continues to face criticism from progressives over a perceived lackluster response to the recent landmark supreme court decision striking down federal abortion rights in the US.In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Harris urged voters to elect a “pro-choice Congress” in November and highlighted that down-ballot contests at the local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights in certain parts of the country.“You don’t have to advocate or believe that this is right for you or your family, but don’t let the government make the decision for her family, whoever she may be,” Harris said in a pre-recorded interview. “It means state offices, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general. It means local races, who’s going to be your DA, who’s going to be your sheriff, enforcing laws that are being passed to criminalize medical health providers, and maybe even the women who seek the service.”On Friday, Joe Biden signed a limited executive order designed to protect access to reproductive health services by expanding access to emergency contraception and bolstering legal services to support people who cross state lines to seek an abortion.But for many abortion advocates and progressive Democrats, the president’s measures do not go far enough. The administration has, for example, resisted calls to use federal land in anti-abortion states to facilitate terminating pregnancies, or subsidizing travel to people forced to travel in order to access services.At least nine US states have banned abortion in the wake of 6-3 supreme court ruling that overturned the Roe v Wade decision that had enshrined the procedure as a constitutional right since 1973. The ruling makes it likely that around half the country – 26 states – will eventually outlaw abortion in some way.The decision followed Donald Trump’s installation of three rightwing justices to the supreme court, paving the way for a conservative super majority on the court.Harris, then a US senator, voted against the former president’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And she said on Sunday she had never believed assurances made in private and public by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they respected the precedence of the Roe decision.“I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate,” Harris said. “I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. So I voted against.”Asked if the Democrats should have done more to enshrine the right to abortion into federal law when the party controlled both chambers of Congress, Harris responded: “We certainly believe that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled. And that’s why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in real unsettled times.”Democrats have faced criticism for fundraising drives off the back of the supreme court decision and recent polling indicates their party still faces a tough day at the ballot box in November, with Biden’s approval ratings plummeting and the party looking set to lose its majority in the House of Representatives.On Sunday, Harris sought to quell calls for Biden to serve just one term as president before allowing a new Democratic nominee to contest the 2024 election.“Listen to President Biden,” Harris said. “He intends to run. And if he does, I intend to run with him.”TopicsKamala HarrisUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

The Uber campaign: how ex-Obama aides helped sell firm to worldUber sought access to leaders, officials and diplomats through David Plouffe and Jim Messina, leak shows

Uber broke laws, duped police and built secret lobbying operation, leak reveals
It was a Sunday afternoon in early November 2015 when David Plouffe emailed his fellow former Barack Obama campaigner Matthew Barzun, typing “Mr ambassador” in the subject line.Plouffe was working for Uber, and Barzun had been rewarded for his fundraising efforts for the US president with the plum job of American ambassador to the UK.“Hope you and your family are well. I will be in London Dec 9 and 10. Any chance you could host the event you kindly suggested with influencers one of those days? Uber, Trump, Clinton etc lots to discuss … David.”Barzun obliged. “What fun!” the ambassador pinged back. Few people turned down Plouffe when he called in favours. It was just one example of how Uber leveraged Plouffe’s reputation and his access to the Obama network to promote its agenda across Europe and the Middle East, according to documents in the leaked Uber files.The embassy staff organised an event in December built around Plouffe giving a talk on the gig economy, and they invited the business minister Anna Soubry, the shadow business minister Kevin Brennan, influential MPs, government officials, journalists and business people. More

Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attackCooperation of former Trump strategist could provide unique insight into inner-workings of Trump’s push to overturn election Steve Bannon, the onetime strategist to Donald Trump who was involved in the former president’s efforts to invalidate his defeat in the 2020 election, has opened discussions with the House January 6 select committee about testifying to the inquiry into the Capitol attack.The offer of cooperation could mark a breakthrough for the panel, which has sought Bannon’s testimony for months, believing he could provide unique insight into the inner-workings of Trump’s unlawful push to stop the congressional certification of his loss to Joe Biden from taking place.Bannon signalled in an email to the select committee, first obtained by the Guardian, that he was prepared to initiate discussions about a time and place for an interview, after Trump said in a letter he would waive executive privilege if he reached an agreement to testify.The email broadly reiterated Bannon’s legal defense that he was previously unable to comply with a subpoena from the panel because at the time, in a claim that has been disputed, the former president had asserted executive privilege over his testimony.But with Trump now willing to waive executive privilege if Bannon and the select committee could secure an arrangement, Bannon was in a position to initiate negotiations about a potential interview, the email said, citing the letter from the former president.The situation with Bannon and executive privilege is complex because he has argued that he does not have to have been a White House employee – he was not for January 6 – to be a close presidential adviser dispensing confidential advice and be subject to executive privilege.He has also argued that while the supreme court has ruled that a current president’s waiver for executive privilege overrules a former president’s assertion, Biden never formally waived Trump’s assertion – the select committee didn’t believe Trump asserted it in the first place.Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, January 6 committee member and congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said she anticipated the panel would schedule an interview with Bannon.“I expect that we will be hearing from him,” Lofgren said. “And there are many questions that we have for him.”The email specifically said Bannon was prepared to testify at a public hearing. It did not say whether Bannon would agree to appear at a closed-door interview first, or ever, and whether he would provide documents in addition to providing testimony.Also unclear was the extent of the assistance Bannon might provide in his testimony, though he was a witness to several key moments in the illicit effort to stop the certification of Biden’s election win on 6 January.That would mean Bannon could, in theory, reveal to House investigators about his conversations with Trump ahead of the Capitol attack – Bannon spoke with Trump on the phone the night before – and strategy discussions at the Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington.The Trump “war room” at the Willard played a major role in the former president’s push to stop the certification. Bannon was based there in the days before the attack, alongside Trump lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, widely seen as the architects of that scheme.Bannon’s offer to testify appears to be a strategic move ahead of his trial for criminal contempt of Congress, scheduled to start on 18 July, that comes after justice department prosecutors charged him for refusing to comply with the select committee’s subpoena last year.The move to testify to the panel now would not “cure” his contempt since he faces criminal contempt and the prosecution is for the past failure to comply with the subpoena, according to former US attorney Joyce Vance.But the email offering to testify could have the effect of reinforcing his legal defense that Trump did in fact assert a legitimate executive privilege claim in October 2021, and that he cannot be prosecuted because of that invocation, according to his letter on Saturday.The offer to testify – and an actual agreement where he appears before the select committee – could also serve to defang the prosecution to some extent, making it a less attractive case for the justice department to pursue and one generally less appealing to jurors.Regardless of what Trump now says in his letter, and in referring Bannon for prosecution, the select committee has maintained that Trump did not assert executive privilege – and even if he did, it did not cover Bannon, who was out of the Trump White House by 6 January.The select committee has also said that Bannon was required to respond to the subpoena in some way, for instance by citing executive privilege on a question-by-question basis, and at least responding to questions that had nothing to do with Trump.Bannon became one of two former Trump advisers charged by the justice department for contempt of Congress. Federal prosecutors also charged Peter Navarro but declined to prosecute the former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the deputy chief, Dan Scavino.TopicsUS politicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackReuse this content More

Musk muses about Mars and Earth – but stays quiet on Twitter dealBillionaire avoids talking of collapse of $44bn deal but talks about colonizing Mars and boosting Earth’s birthrates at conference Elon Musk reportedly talked about the colonization of Mars and boosting Earth’s birthrates during his keynote address at Allen & Co’s Sun Valley conference on Saturday, but he avoided discussing his attempt to withdraw from his $44bn bid to buy Twitter.Musk’s talk to close out this year’s edition of the Idaho conference which annually draws tech, media and finance gurus became one of the hottest tickets after lawyers for the Tesla boss filed notice Friday that he was terminating his bid to acquire Twitter. The billionaire accused the social media firm of failing to provide information on bot accounts, among other things, making observers wonder whether he would address such complaints at his speech scheduled for the next day.Elon Musk withdraws $44bn bid to buy Twitter after weeks of high dramaRead moreBut Musk – who is also chief of the private rocket company SpaceX – declined to do so. Instead, he mused about how he viewed Mars as a “civilian life insurance” if a disaster ever wiped out Earth, Bloomberg reported, citing the recollections of multiple people at the closed-door speech.The remarks on Mars echoed a tweet from him earlier this year that humans could land on the planet by 2029.Reuters, who reported speaking with attendees as well, wrote that Musk also expressed concern over the decline of birthrates in wealthy countries. And, Bloomberg added, he also renewed complaints about how Twitter had banned Donald Trump after the former president’s supporters staged the deadly US Capitol attack in early January 2021.It wasn’t immediately clear whether Musk was aware that Trump had called him a “bullshit artist” and his actions with Twitter “rotten” on Saturday while stumping for Republican political candidates in Alaska.Trump’s insult came after Musk last month said he was mulling throwing his support behind Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, rather than Trump as the Republican challenger to the Democrats’ Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election.The chief executive officer of OpenAI, Sam Altman, reportedly moderated Musk’s talk Saturday.Musk’s withdrawal from Twitter deal sets stage for long court battleRead moreMusk may be in for a lengthy legal battle after notifying the public of his intent to withdraw from buying Twitter.Twitter chairperson Bret Taylor said the social media platform could sue Musk in a Delaware court to enforce the purchase deal they had struck with the world’s richest man. The agreement contained a provision that may force Musk to buy Twitter as long as he has financing in place, which the businessman said he had in May.Musk could also be fined $1bn if he goes through with ditching the deal, though he is trying to avoid the penalty by alleging that Twitter breached “multiple provisions” of its sale agreement.TopicsElon MuskTwitterUS politicsInternetnewsReuse this content More

The Republican party is terrible. So why may Democrats lose to them this year?Robert ReichSome commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left – too far from the so-called ‘center’. This is utter rubbish Much of today’s Republican party is treacherous and treasonous. So why are Democrats facing midterm elections that, according to most political observers, they’re likely to lose?Having been a loyal Democrat for some 70 years, including a stint as a cabinet secretary, it pains me to say this: the Democratic party has lost its way.Some commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left – too far from the so-called “center.” This is utter rubbish. Where’s the center between democracy and authoritarianism, and why would Democrats want to be there?Others think Biden hasn’t been sufficiently angry or outraged. But what good would that do? After four years of Trump, why would anyone want more anger and outrage?It’s time for Democrats to fear their own voters | David SirotaRead moreThe real failure of the Democratic party is its loss of the American working class.As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election: “Democrats don’t have a ‘white working-class’ problem. They have a ‘working-class problem’, which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.”The working class used to be the bedrock of the Democratic party. What happened?During the first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they scored some important victories for working families: the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example.But they also allowed the middle class to hollow out and the working class to sink.Clinton passed free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs a means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.His North American Free Trade Agreement and plan for China to join the World Trade Organization undermined the wages and economic security of manufacturing workers across America, hollowing out vast swaths of the Rust Belt.Clinton also deregulated Wall Street. This led to the financial crisis of 2008 – in which Obama bailed out the biggest banks and bankers but did nothing for homeowners, many of whom owed more on their homes than their homes were worth.Obama didn’t demand as a condition for the bailout that banks refrain from foreclosing on underwater homeowners. Nor did Obama demand an overhaul of the banking system. Instead, he allowed Wall Street to water down attempts at re-regulation.Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations hammered trade unions. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections.Biden has supported labor law reform but hasn’t fought for it, leaving the Protecting the Right to Organize (Pro) Act to die inside his ill-fated Build Back Better Act.Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify, enabling large corporations to grow far larger and major industries to become more concentrated. Biden is trying to revive antitrust enforcement but hasn’t made it a centerpiece of his administration.Both Clinton and Obama depended on big money from corporations and the wealthy. Both turned their backs on campaign finance reform.Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 supreme court opinion opening the floodgates to big money in politics.Joe Biden has tried to regain the trust of the working class, but Democratic lawmakers (most obviously and conspicuously, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) have blocked measures that would have lowered the costs of childcare, eldercare, prescription drugs, healthcare, and education. They’ve blocked a higher minimum wage and paid family leave.Yet neither Manchin nor Sinema nor any other Democrat who has failed to support Biden’s agenda has suffered any consequences.Why hasn’t Biden done more to rally the working class and build a coalition to grab back power from the emerging oligarchy? Presumably for the same reasons Clinton and Obama didn’t: the Democratic party continues to prioritize the votes of “suburban swing voters” who supposedly determine electoral outcomes, and it still depends on money from big corporations and the wealthy.The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. There is no longer a left or right. There is no longer a moderate “center”. The real choice is either Republican authoritarian populism or Democratic progressive populism.Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform – a pro-democracy, anti-establishment movement. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of working people against oligarchy. They must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, and classes to unrig the system.Trumpism is not the cause of our divided nation. It is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratscommentReuse this content More