US Politics

Washington Commanders coach sorry after calling Capitol attack a ‘dust-up’Jack Del Rio referred to Capitol riots as ‘dust-up’ in tweetWashington defensive coordinator joined staff in 2020 An assistant coach for the NFL’s Washington Commanders issued an apology for his word choice after doubling down on a comparison he made on social media between the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the protests in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd.Washington coach defends comparing Floyd protests to January 6 riotsRead moreJack Del Rio, a former linebacker who now runs Washington’s defense, downplayed the deadly insurrection and questioned why the summer of 2020 protests were not receiving the same scrutiny. His comments Wednesday after an offseason practice came a day before a House committee investigating the pro-Donald Trump disruption of Congress 17 months ago begins public hearings on the matter.“People’s livelihoods are being destroyed, businesses are being burned down, no problem,” Del Rio said. “And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol, nothing burned down, and we’re going to make that a major deal. I just think it’s kind of two standards.”Amid backlash for his comments, Del Rio released a statement on Twitter Wednesday afternoon apologizing his word choice. Del Rio said it was “irresponsible and negligent” to call the riot a “dust-up.” But he said he stood by comments “condemning violence in communities across the country.”His comments followed a Twitter post Monday night in which he said, “Would love to understand ‘the whole story’ about why the summer of riots, looting, burning and the destruction of personal property is never discussed but this is ???” He was responding to a tweet about the Congressional hearings into Jan. 6.Del Rio and coach Ron Rivera say they aren’t concerned if the opinion will upset Black players who make up the majority of their team, some of whom spoke out about police brutality and racism in the wake of Floyd’s killing two years ago.“If they are (concerned) and they want to talk about it, I’d talk about it with anybody,” Del Rio said. “No problem. At any time. But they’re not. I’m just expressing myself and I think we all as Americans have a right to express ourselves, especially if you’re being respectful. I’m being respectful.”Washington defensive back Kendall Fuller, a Black player, said he was not aware of Del Rio’s tweet. After a reporter read it to him, Fuller said: “I don’t have a reaction right now. If I have a reaction, a feeling, towards something, I’ll express that with him.”Del Rio, 59, has posted conservative opinions to his verified Twitter account numerous times since joining Rivera’s staff in Washington in 2020.“Anything that I ever say or write, I’d be comfortable saying or writing in front of everybody that I work with, players and coaches,” Del Rio said. “I express myself as an American. We have that ability. I love this country and I believe what I believe and I’ve said what I want to say. Every now and then, there’s some people that get offended by it.”The remarks generated a prompt backlash from some Virginia lawmakers, who for months have been considering whether to pass legislation intended to incentivize the team to build a new stadium in the commonwealth by offering generous tax incentives. Two northern Virginia Democratic senators who had previously been enthusiastic supporters of the measure expressed concerns about Del Rio’s comments.Jeremy McPike tweeted a clip of Del Rio speaking with the message: “Yup. Just sealed the deal to cast my vote as a NO. I think what’s burning down today is the stadium bill.” Scott Surovell predicted there would be no more “votes on stadium bills this year.”Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw, a sponsor of the bill, said the comments were “not helpful” but talks over the legislation would continue. The measure initially cleared the state with broad Senate support, but other defectors had raised concerns even before Del Rio’s remarks.With five years left until their current lease at FedEx Field is set to expire, the Commanders have no stadium deal in place with Virginia, Maryland or the District of Columbia.Rivera, who hired Del Rio to run Washington’s defense without any prior relationship, said he would not discuss anything he talks about with his staff.“Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, though,” Rivera said. “If it ever becomes an issue or a situation, we’ll have that discussion. Right now, it’s something that I will deal with when it comes up.”Del Rio played 11 NFL seasons from 1985-95. He has coached in the league since 1997, including stints as the head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars from 2003-11 and Oakland Raiders from 2015-17.Washington’s defense ranked 22nd out of 32 teams last season after being the league’s second-best in 2020. Del Rio said he likes his players and welcomes any dialogue with them.“Let’s have a discussion. We’re Americans,” he said. “Let’s talk it through. I’m for us having a great opportunity having a fulfilled life every which way I can. When I’m here it’s about love and respect. I love my guys, I respect my guys but I also love the fact that I’m an American and that means I’m free to express myself. I’m not afraid to do that.”TopicsWashington CommandersNFLUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS sportsReuse this content More

Pressure mounts on Senate to act on gun safety amid Republican resistanceRelatives of victims urge action while group of over 220 CEOS send joint letter pushing Senate to address gun violence Pressure is mounting on the US Senate to act on gun safety in the wake of the Uvalde and Buffalo massacres, as Republican intransigence continues to stand in the way of all but modest reforms.On Wednesday the House of Representatives passed a package of gun safety measures designed to staunch the disaster of mass shootings. The extent of Republican resistance was underlined by the fact that only five out of 208 House Republicans voted for the legislation.Uvalde survivor, 11, tells House hearing she smeared herself with friend’s blood Read moreNow the focus – and with it the anger of victims’ families and gun safety advocates – turns to the Senate. With the chamber divided 50-50, and 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster, there is no chance of Democrats passing any changes unless they can bring Republican leaders with them.As compromise talks continue, there are tentative hopes that a deal might be in the offing. But the outcome is likely to be dictated by Republican refusal to contemplate anything other than limited steps.The most promising proposals under discussion include plans to increase resources for mental health treatment, school safety provisions and money to encourage states to introduce “red flag laws” that remove guns from those who might harm themselves or others.On Thursday a group of more than 220 CEOs from some of the biggest brands in the US sent a joint letter to the Senate in which they lamented what they called the “public health crisis” of gun violence. “We urge the Senate to take immediate action … Transcend partisanship and work together to pass bold legislation to address gun violence in our country,” the letter said.Among the signatories were business leaders of some of the most familiar corporations, including Levi Strauss & Co, Lyft, Unilever US, Yelp and the Philadelphia Eagles.Chip Bergh, CEO of Levi Strauss, said in a statement that it was time for senators to act. “Inaction on federal legislation has made gun violence a uniquely American problem,” he said.Gun safety groups are also piling on the pressure on the Senate. Kris Brown, president of the Brady campaign, pointed out that the Senate has sat on legislation to tighten federal background checks on gun sales for the past 15 months.“That’s 15 months of lethal inaction,” he said.The most visceral cries for something to be done are coming from relatives of those who died in the recent massacres. Kimberly Rubio, the mother of Lexi, 10, who was killed in last month’s mass shooting in Uvalde elementary school in Texas, told a House committee this week that it was time for a ban on assault rifles of the sort used to murder her daughter.“We understand for some reason, to some people – to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns – that guns are more important than children. So at this moment, we ask for progress,” she said.A ban on AR-15 style rifles – the sort used in both Uvalde, where 19 children and two teachers were killed, and in Buffalo, New York, where 10 Black people were killed at a grocery store – is not on the agenda for the Senate compromise talks. The discussions, which are being led by the Democratic senator from Connecticut Chris Murphy and his Republican counterpart John Cornyn from Texas, are focusing on more granular measures that have greater hope of moving forward.Other ideas on the table are a proposal to introduce juvenile records into federal background checks for anyone under 21 trying to buy a firearm. Senate Republicans will not countenance raising the age limit to buy AR-15s to 21, even though both the Uvalde and alleged Buffalo shooters were aged 18.Mass shootings continue to be an epidemic in the US, occurring far more frequently than high-profile disasters such as Uvalde and Buffalo. The Gun Violence Archive, which tracks mass shootings, defined as events in which four or more people are shot or killed, counts 251 such incidents in the US so far this year.TopicsUS SenateUS gun controlUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

What to know about the public January 6 committee hearingsHouse panel investigating the Capitol attack will hold six public hearings where it will unveil new evidence against Trump The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is scheduled on Thursday to hold the first of six public hearings where it will unveil new evidence collected against Donald Trump and a range of other operatives over the course of its 10-month inquiry.The congressional investigation into the events of January 6, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, has said it has evidence to suggest Trump violated the law to overturn the 2020 election results.What are the January 6 committee hearings?Likened to the Watergate hearings, the select committee is holding six public hearings to reveal the mountain of evidence it acquired over the course of the sprawling investigation, which interviewed more than 1,000 people and reviewed more than 125,000 documents.The first and last hearings are due to be shown in prime time in America in a move that may cement them in popular culture as a genuine and high-profile effort to warn of a past and ongoing threat to US democracy.When will they occur?The hearings are expected to take place over two weeks. According to a draft schedule first obtained by the Guardian, the panel is looking to hold the first and last hearings in at 8pm ET, and the middle four hearings in the morning at 10am ET.On 9 June, at the inaugural hearing taking place on Capitol Hill, the select committee is expected to make opening arguments, outline a roadmap for the hearings, and then immediately dive into around two hours of events leading up to the Capitol attack.The middle four hearings – tentatively scheduled for 13, 15, 16 and 21 June – are likely to focus on themes like Trumps’ false claims of voter fraud undermining US elections, and how he tried to use fake electors to deceive Congress into returning him to office.The panel is then likely to reserve its most explosive revelations for the final hearing in prime time, where the select committee members Adam Kinzinger and Elaine Luria are expected to run through Trump’s actions and inactions as the January 6 attack unfolded.What is the point of the hearings and what evidence do they have?The select committee’s ambitions for the hearings are twofold: presenting the basis for alleging Trump broke the law, and placing the Capitol attack in a broader context of efforts to overturn the election, with the ex-president’s involvement as the central thread.Among some of the evidence that has already become public include admissions from Trump’s top former legal adviser John Eastman, who admitted in emails obtained by the panel that his plan to obstruct Biden’s certification was unlawful – but pressed ahead anyway.The select committee has also obtained White House records that Trump attempted to hide from the inquiry, before he was overruled by the supreme court, that indicated he lied to his supporters that he would march with them to the Capitol to send them to the building.House investigators have also obtained testimony and photo and video from inside the White House as the pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, including about how he appeared to obstruct the certification through inaction by refusing to tell the rioters to leave Capitol Hill.The panel also expects to chart the re-emergence of the “Stop the Steal” movement by the Trump activist Ali Alexander and others, and how leaders of militia groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and the First Amendment Praetorian coalesced before January 6.How will the hearings unfold and how will its argument be presented?The select committee is aiming to use the public hearings to tell the story of January 6 – and how the Capitol attack was the culmination of months of efforts by Trump and his allies to first reverse his election defeat, and then stop Biden becoming president at any cost.In order to tell that story, the select committee intends to have its senior investigative counsels reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos that will be presented, in real time, to starkly illustrate the live witness testimony.One of the members on the select committee will lead each of the hearings, but it will be top committee counsel who are intimately familiar with the material that will primarily conduct the questioning of witnesses, to keep testimony tightly on track.And as the panel has witnesses testify under oath, committee counsel will simultaneously flash texts and emails, as well as new photos and videos to illustrate the testimony in real time.Where it will be shown?The hearings will be televised. MSNBC will have an hour “pre-game” before the primetime hearings, carry the events live, and then an hour “post-game” afterwards. MSNBC’s streaming service, Peacock, will follow the same format. CNN and CBS will also carry them live.Fox News is the only network that will not show the hearings. For the first and final hearings, Fox News’ highest-rated host Tucker Carlson will run his regular show to deliver “counter-programming” to undercut the evidence presented by the select committee.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

Why the televised hearings on the January 6 insurrection will be historicRobert ReichThey will mark a milestone in the battle between democracy and autocracy. Everyone should tune in and watch them The televised hearings of the House select committee on the January 6 insurrection, which begin on Thursday, mark an historic milestone in the battle between democracy and autocracy. The events that culminated in the attack on the Capitol constitute the first attempted presidential coup in our nation’s 233-year history.To a large degree, the success of these hearings will depend on the Wyoming Republican congresswoman and vice-chair of the committee, Liz Cheney.The select committee’s inquiry is the most important congressional investigation of presidential wrongdoing since the Senate investigation of the Watergate scandals in the 1970s.I vividly recall the televised hearings of the Senate Watergate committee, which began nearly a half-century ago, on 17 May 1973. More than a year later, on 8 August 1974 – knowing that he would be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate – Nixon resigned.I was just finishing law school when the Watergate hearings began. I was supposed to study for final exams but remained glued to my television. I remember the entire cast of characters as if the hearings occurred yesterday, and I’m sure many of you do, too – the North Carolina senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat, who served as the committee’s co-chair; John Dean, the White House counsel who told the committee about Nixon’s attempted cover-up; and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon’s deputy assistant, who revealed that Nixon had taped all conversations in the White House.But to my young eyes, the hero of the Watergate hearings was the committee’s Republican co-chair, the Tennessee senator Howard Baker Jr.Baker had deep ties to the Republican party. His father was a Republican congress­man and his father-in-law was Senate minor­ity leader for a decade.Notwithstanding those ties, Baker put his loyalty to the constitution and rule of law ahead of his loyalty to his party or the president. His steadiness and care, and the tenacity with which he questioned witnesses, helped America view the Watergate hearings as a search for truth rather than a partisan “witch-hunt”, as Nixon described them.It was Baker who famously asked Dean, “what did the president know and when did he know it?” And it was Baker who led all the other Republicans on the committee to join with Democrats in voting to subpoena the White House tapes – the first time a congres­sional commit­tee had ever issued a subpoena to a pres­ident, and only the second time since 1807 that anyone had subpoenaed the chief exec­ut­ive.Fast forward 49 years. This week, Baker’s role will be played by Cheney.Her Republican pedigree is no less impressive than Baker’s was: she is the elder daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney and second lady Lynne Cheney. She held several positions in the George W Bush administration.She is a staunch conservative. And, before House Republicans ousted her, she chaired the House Republican conference, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership.Cheney’s responsibility this week will be similar to Baker’s 49 years ago – to be the steady voice of non-partisan common sense, helping the nation view the hearings as a search for truth rather than a “witch-hunt”, as Trump has characterized them.In many ways, though, Cheney’s role will be far more challenging than Baker’s. Forty-nine years ago, American politics was a tame affair compared with the viciousness of today’s political culture.Republican senators didn’t threaten to take away Howard Baker’s seniority or his leadership position. The Tennessee Republican party didn’t oust him. Nixon didn’t make threatening speeches about him. Baker received no death threats, as far as anyone knows.It will be necessary for Cheney to show – as did Baker – more loyalty to the constitution and the rule of law than to her party or the former president. But she also will have to cope with a nation more bitterly divided over Trump’s big lie than it ever was over Nixon and his cover-up of the Watergate burglary.She will have to face a Republican party that has largely caved in to Trump’s lie – enabling and encouraging it. Baker’s Republican party never aligned itself with Nixon’s lies. Meanwhile, Cheney’s career has suffered and her life and the lives of her family have been threatened.The criminal acts for which Richard Nixon was responsible – while serious enough to undermine the integrity of the White House and compromise our system of government – pale relative to Trump’s. Nixon tried to cover up a third-rate burglary. Trump tried to overthrow our system of government.The January 6 insurrection was not an isolated event. It was part of a concerted effort by Trump to use his lie that the 2020 election was stolen as a means to engineer a coup, while whipping up anger and distrust among his supporters toward our system of government. Yet not a shred of evidence has ever been presented to support Trump’s claim that voter fraud affected the outcome of the 2020 election.Consider (to take but one example) Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in which he pressured Raffensperger to change the presidential vote count in Georgia in order to give Trump more votes than Biden.“All I want to do is this,” Trump told Raffensperger in a recorded phone call. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.” Trump threatened Raffensperger with criminal liability if he did not do so. Trump’s actions appear to violate 18 USC § 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and 18 USC § 1512, obstruction of Congress.The justice department is conducting a criminal investigation into these activities. The attorney general, Merrick Garland, has said that the justice department will “follow the facts and the law wherever they may lead”. As with Watergate, the facts will almost certainly lead to the person who then occupied the Oval Office.This week’s televised committee hearings are crucial to educating the public and setting the stage for the justice department’s prosecution.Federal district court judge David Carter in a civil case brought against the committee by John Eastman, Trump’s lawyer and adviser in the coup attempt, has set the framework for the hearings. Judge Carter found that it was.css-f9ay0g{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C74600;}more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” and concluded that Trump and Eastman “launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history […] The illegality of the plan was obvious.”Those who claim that a president cannot be criminally liable for acts committed while in office apparently forget that Richard Nixon avoided prosecution only because he was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.Those who argue that Trump should not be criminally liable because no president in American history has been criminally liable, overlook the fact that no president in history has staged an attempted coup to change the outcome of an election.Without accountability for these acts, Trump’s criminality opens wide the door to future presidents and candidates disputing election outcomes and seeking to change them – along with ensuing public distrust, paranoia and divisiveness.Liz Cheney bears a burden far heavier than Howard Baker bore almost a half-century ago. Please watch this Thursday’s January 6 committee televised hearings. And please join me in appreciating the public service of Liz Cheney.
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 Capitol attackOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

Republicans keep passing extreme anti-abortion bans without popular support. Here’s whyMost Americans don’t want abortion bans but gerrymandering allows politicians to face little accountability Hello, and happy Thursday,As states have passed a wave of increasingly extreme abortion restrictions in recent years, a sort of puzzling contradiction has emerged. The American public broadly supports the right to an abortion, public polling has shown, yet politicians who pass these controversial restrictions are consistently re-elected. Why is that?US braces for House committee’s primetime January 6 hearings – liveRead moreYesterday, we published a story that seeks to answer that question. A big part of why politicians face little accountability is gerrymandering. State lawmakers, who have the power to draw the boundaries of their own districts in most places, can pick which voters they represent and virtually guarantee their re-election.It’s more important than ever to understand this dynamic. In his draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that abortion is an issue that should be resolved by the political process, not the courts. By insulating politicians from accountability, extreme gerrymandering prevents the political process from doing that. In 2019, Alito joined four of the court’s conservative justices in saying there was nothing federal courts could do to police even the most extreme gerrymandering.Few places better capture the link between partisan gerrymandering and extreme anti-abortion measures than Ohio.In 2010, Republicans won control of the Ohio legislature and drew new maps that allowed them to hold a veto-proof majority for the next decade. In 2011, the legislature began to pass a series of restrictions on abortion. Republicans enacted a new law that banned abortion after a fetus was viable and required viability testing after 20 weeks. They passed another measure that prohibited taxpayer-funded hospitals from entering into patient transfer agreements with clinics, making it harder for the clinics to operate. In 2019, the state had banned abortion after six weeks, one of the most restrictive laws in the country. (The Ohio Policy Evaluation Network, which tracks abortion access in Ohio has a good timeline of these bills).When Ohio lawmakers were passing these measures, there wasn’t overwhelming public support for them. Ohio voters are closely divided on abortion and a majority did not support the six week ban (one poll after it passed in 2019 showed that a majority of people opposed it). Even so, Ohio Republicans have maintained their majorities in the state legislature.“That mismatch between what we see in public opinion and what we see at the statehouse, really suggests that what citizens are thinking about abortion access really is not reflected in their statehouse,” Danielle Bessett, a sociology professor at the University of Cincinnati, who closely studies abortion care in Ohio, told me. “That suggests that there isn’t a concern about this being sort of something that they’re going to get held accountable for at the polls.”It’s an imbalance that exists across the country. Nationally, 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but states are enacting a blitz of increasingly extreme restrictions, including several that are considering outright bans. Republicans continue to control more state legislative chambers than Democrats do, and very few are expected to flip partisan control (fewer than 1 in 5 state legislative districts are estimated to be competitive this year).In Ohio, Republicans have once again engineered maps that preserve their advantage. After the state supreme court struck down five proposals for a new legislative map because they were too gerrymandered, lawmakers ran out the clock. They convinced a federal court to impose a map for the 2022 elections that will allow them to maintain, at minimum, 54% of the seats in the state legislature.“It’s frustrating. In some ways it’s hopeful that people do think that abortion should be a right and should exist for people in Ohio,” Sri Thakkilapati, the interim executive director of PreTerm, an abortion clinic in Cleveland told me. “It’s helpful to know that there are more of us. But in some ways it’s very disheartening…It feels like it’s not gonna make a difference.”Also worth watching…
Jim Marchant, a QAnon linked candidate running to be Nevada’s chief election official, is seeking his party’s nomination in the GOP primary on Tuesday.
Voters with disabilities are suing Alabama for offering inadequate access to absentee ballots for people who are blind
TopicsUS newsFight to voteUS politicsAbortionOhioRoe v WadefeaturesReuse this content More

It is in the best interests of Ukraine, and the west, to end this war as soon as possibleC More

US House passes gun control bill but it faces defeat in SenateSweeping legislation would raise age limit for buying a semiautomatic rifle and put curbs on ammunition sales The US House of Representatives has passed a wide-ranging gun control bill in response to recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, but the proposals have almost no chance of being approved by the Senate and becoming law.The bill would raise the age limit for buying a semi-automatic rifle and prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. The legislation passed by a mostly party-line vote of 223-204. It has almost no chance of becoming law as the Senate pursues negotiations focused on improving mental health programmes, bolstering school security and enhancing background checks. But the House bill does give Democratic lawmakers a chance to frame for voters in November where they stand on policies that polls show are widely supported. “We can’t save every life, but my God, shouldn’t we try? America we hear you and today in the House we are taking the action you are demanding,” said Veronica Escobar, a Texas Democrat. “Take note of who is with you and who is not.”The vote came after a House committee heard wrenching testimony from recent shooting victims and family members, including from an 11-year-old girl, Miah Cerrillo, who covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot at Uvalde elementary school. 01:59The seemingly never-ending cycle of mass shootings in the US has rarely stirred Congress to act. But the shooting of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde has revived efforts in a way that has lawmakers from both parties talking about the need to respond. “It’s sickening, it’s sickening that our children are forced to live in this constant fear,” said the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi.Pelosi said the House vote would “make history by making progress”. But i is unclear where the House measure will go after Wednesday’s vote, given that Republicans were adamant in their opposition. “The answer is not to destroy the second amendment, but that is exactly where the Democrats want to go,“ said the Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio. The work to find common ground is mostly taking place in the Senate, where support from 10 Republicans will be needed to get a bill signed into law. Nearly a dozen Democratic and Republican senators met privately for an hour on Wednesday in hope of reaching a framework for compromise legislation by the end of the week. Participants said more conversations were needed about a plan that is expected to propose modest steps. In a measure of the political peril that efforts to curb guns pose for Republicans, five of the six lead Senate GOP negotiators do not face re-election until 2026. They are senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The sixth, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, is retiring in January. It is also notable that none of the six is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.While Cornyn has said the talks are serious, he has not joined the chorus of Democrats saying the outlines of a deal could be reached by the end of this week. He told reporters on Wednesday that he considered having an agreement before Congress begins a recess in late June to be “an aspirational goal”. The House bill stitches together a variety of proposals Democrats had introduced before the recent shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. The suspects in the shootings at Uvalde elementary school and the Buffalo supermarket were both 18, authorities say, when they bought the semiautomatic weapons used in the attacks. The bill would increase the minimum age to buy such weapons to 21. “A person under 21 cannot buy a Budweiser. We should not let a person under 21 buy an AR-15 weapon of war,“ said Ted Lieu, a California Democrat. Republicans have noted that a US appeals court ruling last month found California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional. “This is unconstitutional and it’s immoral. Why is it immoral? Because we’re telling 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we’re not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family,” said Thomas Massie of Kentucky. The House bill also includes incentives designed to increase the use of safe gun storage devices and creates penalties for violating safe storage requirements, providing for a fine and imprisonment of up to five years if a gun is not properly stored and is subsequently used by a minor to injure or kill themselves or another individual. It also builds on executive actions banning fast-action “bump stock” devices and “ghost guns” that are assembled without serial numbers. The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, hailed the House bill, tweeting: “We continue to work hard with both parties to save lives and stand up for families.” Five Republicans voted for the bill: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, Chris Jacobs of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Fred Upton of Michigan. Only Fitzpatrick is seeking re-election. On the Democratic side, Jared Golden of Maine and Kurt Schrader of Oregon were the only no votes. Schrader lost his re-election attempt in the Democratic primary. Golden faces a competitive election in November. The House is also expected to approve a bill on Thursday that would allow families, police and others to ask federal courts to order the removal of firearms from people who are believed to be at extreme risk of harming themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such “red flag laws”. Under the House bill, a judge could issue an order to temporarily remove and store the firearms until a hearing can be held no longer than two weeks later to determine whether the firearms should be returned or kept for a specific period.TopicsUS gun controlHouse of RepresentativesUS school shootingsTexas school shootingUS politicsBuffalo shootingUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

No easy ride for Biden as Kimmel tells him to ‘start yelling at people’Serious questions on gun violence mean there are few laughs as US president meets late-night TV host “Our very special guest tonight is to aviator sunglasses what Tom Cruise is to aviator sunglasses,” quipped the late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel. “I’m proud to say I voted for him dozens of times. He is the reason we all got a cavity search tonight.”This was how Kimmel introduced Joe Biden for his first in-person interview with a late-night host since taking office as US president.But any hopes that Biden, whose poll ratings are plunging, might have had that the comedian would invite him to show a lighter side to his personality were soon dashed. It was a night when there were not many laughs.Once the president had sat down, Kimmel asked: “Do you mind if I ask you some serious questions?” He then dived straight in to demand why, after a flurry of mass shootings across America, nothing had been done since Biden entered the White House.“Well, I think a lot of it’s intimidation by the NRA [National Rifle Association],” the president replied. “Look, this is not your father’s Republican party. This is a Maga party,” – a reference to the former president Donald Trump’s “Make America great again” slogan, which Biden is increasingly using an insult.“It’s a very different Republican party and so you find people who are worried, I believe, that if they vote for a rational gun policy they’re going to be primaried and they’re going to lose in a hard-right Republican primary.”Biden said he had always had a “straight relationship” with Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate. “You know, he’s a guy that when he says something, he means it. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he means it.”But Kimmel, seemingly determined to blunt rightwing criticism that he would give the president an easy ride, showed greater willingness to interrupt Biden than many political interviewers. He objected that McConnell had contradicted himself on confirming supreme court justices in a president’s final year.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BSTBiden added: “Look, he’s the leader of a party that’s moved very hard right and so, in order to get anything done, he has a different problem than he did early on before Trump became president.”Kimmel observed that although the Republican party had moved to the hard right, the American people had not because an overwhelming majority supported expanded background checks on gun buyers. His voice quivering with emotion, the host suggested that every senator should sit with the grieving families of 19 schoolchildren killed last month in Uvalde, Texas.He interrupted Biden again to ask impatiently: “Can’t you issue an executive order? Trump passed those out like Halloween candy.”The president noted he had issued some executive orders but said to applause: “I don’t want to emulate Trump’s abuse of the constitution and constitutional authority.”He said he knew some people felt like “Republicans don’t play it square, why do you play it square? Well, guess what? If we do the same thing they do, our democracy will literally be in jeopardy. Not a joke.”Kimmel replied: “It’s like you’re playing Monopoly with somebody who won’t pass go or won’t follow any of the rules, and how do you ever make any progress if they’re not following the rules?”Biden smiled and joked, “You’ve got to send them to jail”, a reference to a punishment in the board game.Biden is facing concerns about high fuel prices, baby formula shortages, and a lack of progress on several legislative fronts such as gun safety and voting rights. A Morning Consult poll published on Wednesday found that 58% of those surveyed disapproved of Biden’s performance as president, while 39% of respondents approved.Biden has also been criticised for giving fewer media interviews than his predecessors: Wednesday’s was his first since 10 February. While Trump gave late-night TV a wide berth as president, Barack Obama was a regular presence on the shows during his time in office. Biden did a virtual interview with Jimmy Fallon last December.Kimmel’s show on the ABC network was recorded in Los Angeles, where Biden is visiting for this week’s Summit of the Americas, bringing together countries from across the hemisphere. The first lady, Jill Biden, was in the audience along with Biden’s granddaughter Naomi and her fiance.At one point Kimmel, who in past years has spoken out passionately about healthcare and gun violence, pondered political gridlock and the spread of false information and advised: “I think you need to start yelling at people.”Biden demurred, saying the US was still suffering from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, but insisted he had “never been more optimistic in my life”.Kimmel again cut in: “Why are you so optimistic? It makes no sense.”Biden said he was pinning his hopes on young people, the “best educated, least prejudiced, most giving generation in American history. This generation is going to change everything. We just have to make sure we don’t give up.”Later Kimmel sympathised with Biden’s endlessly multiplying crises, including an imminent supreme court decision on abortion rights. “What a terrible job you have,” he said. “I’m glad you’re doing it. But, boy oh boy, does this seem like a bad gig.”TopicsJoe BidenThe US politics sketchBiden administrationUS gun controlJimmy KimmelUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More